Information Systems Management, 24:373–390, 2007

Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 1058-0530 print/1934-8703 online
DOI: 10.1080/10580530701586144

Developing a B2B E-Commerce

Implementation Framework: A Study of
EDI Implementation for Procurement
Abraham Asher
Assistant Professor, California ABSTRACT  A case study was performed examining the electronic data
State University, Long Beach, interchange (EDI) implementation projects of four divisions of an aero-
Long Beach, CA, USA. space company. By interviewing both partners in the relationship, a busi-
ness-to-business (B2B) electronic commerce (e-commerce) implementation
framework was developed. The framework provides guidelines for the type
of e-business partnership to be pursued based on the volume of transac-
tions (low vs. high) and complexity of transactions (simple vs. complex).
Machine-to-machine B2B solutions should be pursued when the there is a
high transaction volume of simple transactions. In other situations, poten-
tial B2B solutions include: e-business pull, partner access-extranet/push, or
manual e-transmission.

Keywords  electronic commerce (e-commerce), electronic data interchange

(EDI), interorganizational systems (IOS), adoption of IT, partnerships

Address correspondence to
Abraham Asher,
California State University,
Long Beach,
Long Beach, CA 90840-8506, USA.
E-mail:aasher@csulb.edu
You might be thinking to yourself, what more is there learn from Electronic
Data Interchange (EDI) in 2007. Don’t we know everything there is about
this several decades old technology? Due to the wealth of historical informa-
tion regarding EDI, it can now be studied for factors that lead to successful
EDI partnerships and for factors that hindered the formation of these part-
nerships. An understanding of these factors can assist in the formation of
future Electronic Commerce (e-commerce) partnerships. We now have the
benefit of “hindsight” in forming new Business-to-business (B2B) e-com-
merce partnerships, which are critical in today’s business environment.
Interorganizational Systems (IOS) are being used to form partnerships that
allow companies to concentrate on their core competencies, while relying
on their partners for support activities. Several research papers and forecasts
show that e-commerce is still growing. Businessline (Anonymous, 2007a)
published a report forecasting that online revenues for Indiamart.com will
increase from Rs 9 billion in 2004–2005 to Rs 53 billion by 2007–2008 and
cross Rs 125 billion by 2009–2010. In the B2B trade publishing industry,
Information Outlook (Anonymous, 2006) reports that a forecast by Outsell
Inc. predicts a modest 5.9% compound annual growth rate from 2006 to
2009. In it’s 2007 E-Stats, the U.S. Census Bureau reported that the total value
of U.S. shipments, sales, or revenues increased by 8.1% in 2005 and that 92%
373
of all e-commerce was B2B (Anonymous, 2007b).
Canada’s Business and Consumer Site estimated that
total B2B online trading in the U.S. will increase
from approximately $1.6 trillion in 2002 to $7.2 tril-
lion in 2006 (strategis.gc.ca, 2003). An EC World
survey of 151 companies, randomly selected from
EC World subscribers, shows that despite the drag-
ging economy in 2001, 90% of companies planed to
sustain or increase their e-commerce or e-business
investments where only 9% intend to scale back e-
business spending at all, and if so, only at a moder-
ate rate (McKendrik, 2001). Given the importance
of B2B e-commerce, it is critical to form successful
e-business partnerships.
EDI is one of the earliest types of B2B e-commerce
technologies. Proponents of EDI claim that as B2B
e-commerce grows, EDI will expand. The 2007 U.S.
Census Bureau reports that B2B e-commerce relies
overwhelmingly on proprietary EDI system (Anon-
ymous, 2007b). In 2002, Giga Information Group,
Inc. predicted that EDI revenues for software and
services will grow from $1.8 billion in 2001 to $2.1
billion by 2006 (Vollmer, 2002). Forrester Research
reported that many-to-many EDI networks remain
the largest electronic channel for B2B orders and
sales (Bartels, 2003). In recent years, critics of EDI
proclaimed its demise with the emergence of web-
based e-commerce. Computerworld reports that after
all these years and predictions that XML (extensible
mark-up language, a document-tagged language that
can be used to send documents using Internet tech-
nologies) would destroy EDI, EDI is still alive and
well (Silwa, 2004; Sliwa, 2000). With large corpora-
tions, the old tried-and-true EDI initiatives still rule.
Computerworld interviewed users attending a Data
Interchange Standards Association conference who
stated that not only is EDI alive and well within their
companies, but also that its usage actually contin-
ues to grow—because they are either expanding the
number of EDI trading partners, increasing the types
of transactions, or bringing smaller suppliers into the
fold through web-based forms. Despite negative out-
looks and forecasts, it appears that EDI is expanding
and adapting to utilize the web-based technologies
and it is still an important part of the B2B market.
Not all the statistics regarding EDI report a success
story. Some studies show that EDI implementation
has not been as extensive as anticipated. Whereas
95% of Fortune 1000 firms have implemented EDI,
A. Asher 374
only 2% of the remaining 6 million businesses in the
U.S. have done so (Densmore, 1998; Rogers, 1995).
Furthermore, large companies have had difficulties
motivating their partners to adopt EDI, and on aver-
age have only been able to motivate 20% of their
partners to implement EDI (Chwelos, Benbasat, &
Dexter, 2001). Given that EDI has been and will
likely continue to be a major part of e-commerce, it
is important to understand why its adoption is not
as high as initially anticipated. Is EDI more widely
adopted now due to the web-based technologies?
What are the reasons for the low adoption rate?
Most IOS studies to date have focused on one
of the partners in the partnership. For example, in
studies regarding outsourcing, surveys have been
sent to firms for their perceptions of the relation-
ship (Grover, Cheon, & Teng, 1996; Nam, Rajagopa-
lan, Rao, & Chaudhury, 1996). In the case of EDI,
adoption and implementation questions have been
directed at firms that have been requested to adopt
EDI (Banerjee & Sriram, 1995; Chwelos et al., 2001;
Hart & Saunders, 1998; Iacovou, Benbasat, & Dex-
ter, 1995; Suzuki & Williams, 1998; Williams, Magee,
& Suzuki, 1998). However, because a partnership
is formed, the perspective of both partners should
be sought. In order to develop a B2B e-commerce
implementation framework, this study interviewed
both partners forming an EDI partnership.
RESEARCH OPPORTUNITY
An opportunity existed to study the EDI imple-
mentation projects of several divisions of a world-
wide aerospace company. This research studied four
of these divisions, all based in the United States.
EDI implementation is broad; some areas to which
EDI can be applied include Finance, Materials and
Management, Transportation, Purchasing, Distribu-
tion and Warehousing, Insurance, and Government.
When organizations begin to utilize EDI, the first
transactions are usually for either Procurement or
Sales Invoices (Hart & Saunders, 1998; Premkumar,
Ramamurthy, & Nilakanta, 1994). The EDI imple-
mentation projects in this study were for automat-
ing the manual/paper-based procurement processes
(purchase orders, change notices, and acknowledge-
ments). Since this study’s goal was to develop a B2B
e-commerce implementation framework, the focus
on the initial stages of EDI implementation was
appropriate. The framework developed was based
on EDI procurement transactions in a manufactur-
ing industry and caution must be used in extend-
ing the results to other industries, such as sales and
service.
EDI BACKGROUND
Traditional EDI
Swatman and Swatman (1992) define EDI as co-
operative interorganizational systems (IOS) that
allow trading partners to exchange structured busi-
ness information electronically between separate
computer applications. EDI has been around since
the 1970’s and numerous studies have shown its
advantages and disadvantages. Among the benefits
of EDI are to reduce cost, reduce paperwork, faster
turnaround, improve control of inventories/suppli-
ers, improve customer relationship and customer
service, and a potential strategic advantage (Carter
& Fredenall, 1990; Emmelhainz, 1988; Grover, 1993;
Jai-Yeol, Narasimhan, & Riggins, 2005; Subramani,
2004; Teo, Wei, & Benbasat, 2003). Although many
benefits can be gained by adopting EDI, there are
also difficulties, which include high implementa-
tion costs, high data transmission costs, difficulty in
keeping up with standards, difficulty in establishing
an audit trail, rigid message formats, and the need
for a technologically skilled staff (Cragg & King,
1993; Pfeiffer, 1992; Saunders & Clark, 1992; Swat-
man & Swatman, 1991). Some of the recurring costs
associated with traditional EDI are due to the usage
of the Value Added Network (VAN). Among the ser-
vices provided by the VAN are fast and secure mes-
sage transmission between trading partners, but it
charges per the number of characters sent.
EDI partnerships have typically been initiated by
large companies requesting their partners to adopt
an e-business solution. So, the large companies are
known as initiators. In this study, the four divisions
of the large aerospace company are referred to as
the initiators. The initiators’ goal is to persuade their
suppliers to adopt the e-business technology. If they
are successful in forming a partnership with a sup-
plier, the supplier is known as an adopter. Those
suppliers who refuse to form the partnership are
375 Developing a B2B E-Commerce Implementation Framework
known as non-adopters. Numerous studies have
been performed to determine which factors influ-
ence suppliers to adopt EDI. Factors influencing
adoption include compatibility, relative advantage,
perceived relative advantage, and cost reduction
(Cragg & King, 1993; Premkumar et al., 1994; Tor-
natzky & Klein, 1982). Factors inhibiting adoption
include complexity, implementation cost, need to
change internal systems, lack of technological skills,
and lack of system integration (Pfeiffer, 1992; Saun-
ders & Clark, 1992). Iacovou et al. (Iacovou, Izak,
& Dexter, 1995) researched adoption in small busi-
nesses and found that organizational readiness,
external pressure to adopt, and perceived benefits
were significant factors that influenced adoption.
Social pressures, such as differences in cultural
assumptions, nature of business transactions, impor-
tance of market institution, organizational size,
organizational structure, industry competitiveness,
demand uncertainty, power, and trust have been
shown to have and affect on adoption and diffusion
(Barrett, 1999; Hart & Saunders, 1998; Jai-Yeol, Srid-
har, & Frederick, 2005; Williams, 1994).
The Internet and EDI
As the Internet expanded, many predicted the
demise of traditional EDI. However, EDI has evolved
to use the web-based technology and has expanded.
One main advantage that the web provides is that
trading partners do not have to rely on the VAN for
data transmission, thus saving on transmission costs.
However, the partners need to take care of the ser-
vices provided by the VAN. Some of the services
that the VAN provided are security, standards trans-
lation, and fast and reliable transmission (Downing,
2002; Kay, 2004; Witte, Grunhagen, & Clarke, 2003).
To address security and transmission performance
issues some companies have adopted the new AS2
protocol (EDI Integration Applicability Statement 2)
which uses certificate-based encryption and data
compression (Scheier, 2003).
Williams and Frolick (2001) studied the evolution
of EDI at FedEx. One of the findings in the case
was that the key to being able to pursue trading
partners effectively is flexibility based on the part-
ners’ capabilities. FedEx has the ability to perform
traditional-based EDI with those partners that have
the infrastructure (technology and skills) and it pro-
vides other alternatives for their other partners (URL
for internet access, FTP-file transfer protocol, dial-up
access, or other direct computer-to-computer access).
DeJesus (2001) performed a field report comparing
EDI to XML and discovered that some companies
see EDI and XML coexisting indefinitely. EDI is
excellent for trading partners exchanging a high vol-
ume of transactions; whereas XML may impede their
connections.
Downing (2002) compared the performance of
traditional EDI, web-based EDI, and companies not
using EDI. Downing reports that companies using
web-based or traditional EDI experience superior
performance in internal operational efficiency as
well as overall performance, while companies using
web-based EDI experience superior performance in
commitment between EDI partners as well as over-
all performance.
EDI Summary
The literature showed that there are many factors
involved in the formation of successful EDI partner-
ships. As the technology evolves, there are opportu-
nities to form e-business partnerships that may have
been too costly in the past. Depending on the types
of relationships and capabilities of the partners, vari-
ous types of e-business relationships may be formed.
The B2B e-commerce framework developed in this
study took these factors into consideration.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
In order to develop a B2B e-commerce imple-
mentation framework, the process for forming the
TABLE 1  Initiators’ Key Personnel
Questions
Why were the e-business partnerships pursued?
How were the e-business partnerships pursued?
What were the partners’ perceptions of the implementation?
A. Asher 376
e-business partnerships must be analyzed. This
analysis highlights not only the actions that led to
successful partnerships, but also the actions that
inhibited the formation of the partnerships. So, it is
necessary to understand why the partnerships were
pursued, how the partnerships were pursued, and
the perceptions of the implementation from both
partners point of view (what lead to or hindered the
formation of successful partnerships)? So, this study
posed the following questions:
1. Why were the e-business partnerships pursued?
2. How were the e-business partnerships pursued?
3. What were the partners’ perceptions of the
implementation?
Table 1 below summarizes the Research Ques-
tions and Sources of Information.
METHDOLOGY
This study was exploratory, in that the goal was
to develop a framework for e-business implementa-
tions. In order to understand the process by which
the partnerships were formed, open-ended inter-
views were conducted with both partners, archival
data was collected, and the data was analyzed.
A grounded theory research methodology was
used with the goal of producing an explanation of
what led to a successful EDI implementation and
what prevented the formation of a successful partner-
ship. From this, a B2B e-commerce implementation
framework was developed. Grounded theory “is an
inductive, theory discovery methodology that allows
the researcher to develop a theoretical account of
the general features of a topic while simultaneously
grounding the account in empirical observation or
Sources of Information
Initiators’ Initiators’ Suppliers’ Point Archival
Management Implementers of Contact Data
X X X
X X X
X X X
TABLE 2  Research Questions and Sources of Information focus of this research. The four divisions will be
referred to as 1, 2, 3, and 4. Divisions 1, 2, and 3
Total have similar business facilities. That is, all three have
Role Div 1 Div 2 Div 3 Div 4 (w/dups)
production facilities for a few product lines with
Management 01 11 21 28 12 fairly known production rates and schedules. Divi-
02 12 22 29 sion 4 was originally built as a research and devel-
03 13 opment facility. This division also has a production
04 14
facility; however, production rates are low and vary
Analysts/Programmers 051 15 23 30 17
061 16 24 31
by product and volume. By the nature of being part
07 17 383 32 of an aerospace company, all of the divisions pro-
332 18 332 duce a low volume of end products when compared
051 to other industries, such as automotive, consumer
061 electronics, clothing, and so on.
Procurement Agents 08 19 25 34 12 Initiators’ key personnel were identified by exam-
09 20 26 35
ining archival data for participants involved in the
10 27 36
37 implementation of EDI at each division. E-mails
Total 11 10 8 12 41 were sent to these employees informing them of
(Including 3 duplicates. the purpose of the study and requesting either a
See notes 1 & 2) face-to-face or telephone interview. When possible,
Notes: 1: Initially worked at Division 1 and then moved to Division 4;
a face-to-face interview was preferred. Interview
2: Initially worked at Division 4, then provided consulting services times ranged from approximately 30 to 60 minutes.
to Division 1; and 3: Initially worked at a division not included in Additionally, names of other key personnel were
this study. Division 3 had a similar process as the division that this
participant came from. requested for further interviews.
A total of 38 key personnel participated in the
data” (Martin & Turner, 1986). Grounded theory study. Participants were coded with a two digit iden-
approaches are becoming increasingly common tification code (01, 02, … , 38). Table 2 shows the
in the IS research literature because the method is key personnel that participated in the study at each
extremely useful in developing context-based, pro- division by their functional role.
cess-oriented descriptions and explanations of the
phenomenon (Myers, 1997). So, grounded theory
methodology was appropriate for this study. Suppliers’ Points of Contact

Persons who were points of contact for the sup-

FINDINGS
This section discusses the data sources used in
this study and then proceeds with the finding of
the interview data: why the e-business partnerships
were pursued, how the e-business partnerships were
pursued, and what the partners’ perceptions were of
the implementation.
Findings—Data Sources
Initiators’ Key Personnel
As previously discussed, the EDI implementations
of four divisions of an aerospace company were the
pliers were identified by obtaining archival records
from the initiators’ listings of e-business contacts for
each of their suppliers. From each list, a random
sample of approximately 10% of the total population
was selected (this represented 68 points of contact).
As per the grounded theory nature of the study, it
was determined that if a pattern did not appear from
the sample, more interviews would be conducted.
Telephone interviews that lasted approximately
20 to 30 minutes were conducted with each point
of contact. The interviews were conducted to con-
firm the implementation process described by the
initiating divisions, determine the factors that influ-
enced the formation of the partnership, and identify
factors necessary for a successful B2B e-commerce
partnership.

377 Developing a B2B E-Commerce Implementation Framework

TABLE 3  Suppliers’ Points of Contact
Department Function
Information Technology
Sales
General Management
Total
During the interview process, there were cases
where a point of contact was no longer employed
by a supplier. Additionally, some of the suppliers
merged with other companies or were no longer
in business. In these cases, replacement points of
contact were interviewed. As the interview process
continued, similar feedback was being re-iterated by
the points of contact. So, after 80 interviews, it was
determined that enough interviews were conducted.
The 80 interviews represented 76 distinct companies
(at four companies two interviews were performed).
In two cases, after the interview, the point of con-
tact felt that additional information could be gained
by interviewing another team member. In the other
two cases, the company was large and had several
sites. Thus, interviews were conducted with a point
of contact at two key sites. Table 3 lists key points
of contact by their departmental function. Points of
contact were asked their function and were catego-
rized as a Salesperson, an Information Technology
Person, or a General Management Person. General
Management roles included the company President,
Vice President, or owner.
Table 4 lists the number of partnerships that the
interviews represented at each aerospace division.
Since the aerospace divisions belonged to the same
TABLE 4  Supplier Interviews by Division
Div 1 Div 2
Total Number of Interviews   42   47
Distinct Number of
  39   43
Companies Represented
Number of Partnerships
  39   59
Represented
Total Number of EDI
208 205
Partnerships
Percentage of Partnerships
18.8% 28.8% 22.6% 37.0%
Interviewed
Notes: There were a total of 80 interviews representing 76 distinct com-
panies. The above numbers take into account multiple divisions
having a relationship with a single supplier and a single supplier
accounting for multiple partnerships.
A. Asher 378
corporation and they manufactured products that
required similar components and raw material, sup-
Total
pliers were often used by more than one division.
42 So, interviews performed with a single supplier could
29 represent a partnership with more than one division.
 9 Additionally, some of the suppliers are large corpora-
80 tions that have numerous sites. In some of these large
companies e-business relationships for all the sites
are formed through a central site (or a few e-business
sites). Thus, an interview with a point of contact at
one of the central sites of a large supplier may repre-
sent several partnerships for each aerospace division.
Therefore, the 80 interviews represented between 18%
to 28% of the total number of partnerships in divisions
1, 2, and 3, and 37% of the partnerships in division 4.
Why Pursue the  
E-Business Partnership?
The results of the open-ended interview ques-
tions from both the initiators and suppliers were
used to determine why the e-business partnerships
were pursued.
Driving Factors
Initiators’ Feedback
The feedback from all four divisions was similar
as to why the relationships were pursued. The main
reasons for pursuing the relationships were:
⦁ Reduce Cost (Primarily);
⦁ Reduce Cycle Time;
⦁ Eliminate/Reduce paper in the current procure-
Div 3 Div 4 ment process; and
  41 17 ⦁ Reduce errors in manual process.
  39 15
A few participants added the following reasons:
  47 20
⦁ Integration;
208 54 ⦁ Industry Standard; and
⦁ Ensure Delivery.
The responses were consistent from both Supplier
Management and Information Technology organi-
zations and from all the functional roles, such as
Management (Top, Middle, and First Level), Project
Managers, Systems Analysts, Programmers, and Pro-
curement Agents. The results indicate that the initia-
tors’ primary objective in pursuing EDI partnerships
was to become more efficient. Initiator’s stated that
EDI would help them “streamline” their processes
in order to reduce cost. Note that reduce cycle time,
eliminate/reduce paper, and reduce errors in manual
processes all have a direct impact on cost reduc-
tion. Although the secondary reasons of integration,
industry standard, and ensure delivery also assist in
reducing cost, these factors relate more to effective-
ness rather than efficiency.
Suppliers’ Feedback
The feedback from the suppliers was that they
formed the partnerships because the customer
demanded it. They felt that they needed to comply
with the demands of the initiators since the aerospace
division was a large customer and failure to comply
would risk losing future business. Additionally, the
entire industry was automating manual processes and
utilizing e-commerce; so, they would have to do the
same or risk not being able to participate or compete.
Of the 76 distinct suppliers interviewed, 67 stated that
they had already implemented EDI with another cus-
tomer. So, they already had the existing infrastructure
and skills to comply with the customer’s demand.
Some suppliers also stated that the implementation
of EDI promised to reduce cycle time, provide for inte-
gration to their internal systems, and reduce errors.
How Were the E-Business
Partnerships Pursued?
Information as to how the e-business partnerships
were pursued came from the initiators’ open-ended
interview questions. This section reports on how
the initiators identified potential e-business partners,
how the adoption took place, and the confirmation
of the process with the suppliers.
E-Business Partner Identification
All four divisions used similar criteria to identify
potential partners for the IOS e-business ­partnership.
379 Developing a B2B E-Commerce Implementation Framework
The primary criterion was high volume of trans-
actions. Typically, partners with high volume of
transactions also represented the high total dol-
lars spent with a supplier, and low dollars per
transaction. Transactions with a low dollar value
generally indicate that the transaction is simple.
High dollar transactions require additional signatures
and are processed through a more complex cycle.
Additionally, since a lot of business was conducted
with these selected suppliers, they represented the
partners with which there was a close relationship.
There may be cases where you have partners with
low volume of transactions, but with high dollars:
these partners also represent a close relationship.
However, due to the low volume of transactions, an
e-business partnership was not pursued.
Once EDI was established with a high transaction
volume supplier, the benefits of B2B e-commerce
(reduction of cycle time, cost, and paper-based pro-
cess) are gained for a large portion of the business.
This logic was used in preparing business cases to
approve the EDI implementation initiatives. Archival
data for these divisions revealed that on average, 200
suppliers accounted for approximately 75 to 80% of
the volume of transactions. Figure 1 illustrates this,
showing a typical cumulative volume of transactions
by supplier chart for one of the divisions for the first
three quarters of 2001.
Some of the participants’ comments in describing
the partner identification process were as follows:
⦁ “Get the biggest bang for the buck.”
⦁ “Get the low hanging fruit.”
⦁ “Apply the 80/20 rule.”
Initiators’ Implementation Process
The processes used at the each of the aerospace
divisions are summarized in this section. The EDI
implementation processes for divisions 1, 2, & 4
were similar; whereas division 3 decided to utilize
an outsource partner to assist them in the formation
of the EDI partnerships.
Divisions 1, 2, & 4  The first step in the process was
to communicate the objective to form e-business
partnerships to their suppliers. These divisions held
occasional (typically bi-annual) supplier conferences
 100%
90%

of Total Transaction Volume

80%

Cummulative Percent
70%
60%

50% Cum. Percent

40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Number of Suppliers

FIGURE 1  Typical Volume of Transactions by Number of Suppliers.

with their close partners. At these conferences, the in the future. However, they did not threaten the
initiative to form B2B e-commerce partnerships was suppliers with loss of business or attempt to force
communicated. A general process of the steps taken them into the partnership.
to form the EDI partnerships is shown in Figure 2.
A description of the general process follows. STEP 4—Trading Partner Agreement  If a supplier
agreed to form the relationship, a Trading Partner
STEP 1—Partner Identification  Potential e-business Agreement (TPA) was sent to the supplier. This
partners were identified as previously described. agreement stated that the supplier wanted to form
the EDI e-commerce relationship and would be
STEP 2—Letter to Supplier/Gather Information  ­ receiving transactions electronically.
Suppliers were sent a letter informing them that
the specific division was interested in forming an STEP 5—Information Technology Contact  An Infor-
EDI partnership. The letter stated that EDI was the mation Technology representative then contacted
method by which the division intended to conduct the supplier to work out the technical details of the
business in the future and encouraged the supplier implementation. An EDI implementation guide was
to form a partnership. Included with the letter was sent to the supplier outlining the data mappings for
a survey to gather supplier information. Suppliers the EDI transaction sets. EDI implementation infor-
were asked whether they were already in an e-busi- mation was also provided on a web page.
ness relationship (if so, which type of EDI transac-
tions?) or had the infrastructure to form e-business STEP 6—Test/Parallel Implementation Period  Test
partnerships. transactions with a combination of scenarios were
sent to the supplier. After successful transmission
STEP 3—Not Interested—Supplier Management of the documents, a “paper parallel” period began.
Contact  If a supplier did not want to form the During this time, the supplier received the transac-
e‑business partnership, a Supplier Management rep- tion electronically and via mail. This period had no
resentative would make a follow-up call to encourage predetermined time span, but typically lasted 30 to
the supplier to adopt EDI. The callers reiterated that 60 days. This provided enough time for the partners
they expected all business to be done ­electronically to gain confidence in the e-business process.

A. Asher 380
 ⦁ “The problem with standards is that everybody
STEP 1
ID Suppliers has their own standard.”
⦁ “Standards can be interpreted differently by dif-
ferent people.”
STEP 2
Supplier Letter Additionally, not all procurement systems are the
same. For example, some allow multiple scheduled
delivery dates on a single line item of the order.
Others require two specific line items. In the data
Interested
in mapping phase of the implementation, these types
YES NO
EDI of technical issues need to be resolved.
Note that although division 4 used the same pro-
cess as divisions 1 & 2, they were more selective in
STEP 4 STEP 3 the partner identification step. In addition to identi-
TPA SM Contact
fying suppliers with high volume transactions; ini-
YES tially, they only pursued partnerships with suppliers
who already had existing EDI partnerships. In gen-
STEP 5
IT Contact
eral, this was not an issue. Recall that 67 of the 76
Interested
in distinct suppliers interviewed already had an exist-
EDI ing EDI partnership.
STEP 6
Test / Parallel Division 3  Division 3 formed its first EDI e-com-
Implementation
merce partnership in September 1997: it was the lat-
est of the four divisions in this study (Division 1’s
first partnership was in October 1995, division 2’s
STEP 7
Production was in March 1993, and divisions 4’s was in March
NO
1996). Division 3 initially intended on using the
same process as described previously, but to also
END
take advantage of new technological advancements:
web-based-EDI and XML standards. They wanted
FIGURE 2  General E-Business Partnership Process.
to form some kind of B2B e-commerce partnership
STEP 7—Production  Once confident in the e-busi- with all their suppliers as opposed to only the high
ness process, paper copies were no longer sent. volume suppliers.
Transactions were sent through EDI in production. Division 3 soon realized that they did not have the
As can be seen, the process to form the e-busi- technical resources required to form successful B2B
ness partnership can be time consuming. For suppli- e-commerce partnerships. So, they decided to out-
ers that have never implemented EDI, the technical source this activity. Comparing division 3’s process
phase could be very difficult. Even for those suppli- to the one discussed previously, division 3 still iden-
ers that have other EDI relationships, data mappings tified the potential e-business partners, sent them
have to be configured to receive orders from the spe- letters, and obtained the TPA. After the TPA was
cific division. Although there are EDI standards, there obtained, the supplier information was forwarded
are different versions of the standard. The following to the outsource provider. Figure 3 illustrates this
comments about standards from interviewed partici- process.
pants help explain why standards did not resolve the With the assistance of the outsource provider,
data mapping requirement with new partners: division 3 formed two types of IOS e-business part-
nerships: (1) machine-to-machine e-business part-
⦁ “A standard without a methodology or an agreed nerships (EDI) and (2) non-machine-to-machine
convention for its implementation is nothing but e-business partnership (providing the data for suppli-
organized chaos.” ers to pull in PDF or XML format). Division 3 formed

381 Developing a B2B E-Commerce Implementation Framework

 STEP 1
What Were the Partners’ Perceptions
ID Suppliers of the Implementation?
In order to develop a successful e-business imple-
STEP 2 mentation framework, it is critical to understand
Supplier Letter the partners’ perception of the EDI implementation.
What led to successful implementations and what
impede the implementation.
Interested
in
YES NO
EDI Initiators’ Perception

Feedback from participants in divisions 1, 2, and

STEP 4 STEP 3 3 in all functional levels (Management, Analysts, and
TPA SM Contact
Procurement Agents) perceived that their EDI imple-
YES mentation process was successful. The reasons for
the perceived success were because the main objec-
STEP 5
Forward to tives were met. That is, the EDI implementations
Interested
outsource provider
in were successful in reducing cycle time, cost, and the
EDI paper-based system.
STEP 6
In general, participants from division 4 were dis-
(outsourced) satisfied with the EDI implementation. Feedback
IT Contact
was that the implementation was halted due to (1)
Anticipation of technological innovations promis-
STEP 7 ing cheaper and easier implementation solutions,
(outsourced) (2) Anticipation of a corporate e-business solution
Test / Parallel
Implementation (versus each division managing its’ EDI implemen-
tation), (3) Discussions of the procurement system
STEP 8
NO being replaced, and (4) Nature of their business
Production required complex data transmission requirements.
(Both outsource / Due to these concerns, division 4 did not fully com-
Division)
mit to the initiative and only formed a small number
END of partnerships. Participants from division 4 stated
that there are great benefits to be gained from B2B
FIGURE 3  E-Business Partnership Process using outsource
e-commerce partnerships, but top management
Provider. commitment, budget, and a solid business case are
necessary.
over 1000 e-business partnerships: a little over 200 An additional criticism, from all the divisions, was
of these represented EDI partnerships. that not enough EDI transaction sets were pursued.
An initial procurement based EDI implementation
Suppliers’ Feedback Regarding generally involves the following EDI transactions:
the Implementation Process 850 Purchase Orders, 860 Purchase Orders Change
Request—Buyer Initiated, and 997 Functional
Supplier interviews confirmed the implementa- Acknowledgement. Some participants in the study
tion process used by the initiators. Feedback was felt that a lot of potential benefits were not gained
that this was a typical process used in the ­industry. by not implementing additional EDI transaction
The suppliers generally felt that the process was sets, including those for the complete procurement
extensive, but was necessary in order to automate cycle: ordering by access to inventory, the receiv-
the manual process. ing process, and invoice payments. These issues are

A. Asher 382
related to diffusion of the technology and need to be
addresses after the initial adoption.
Finally, some participants’ criticism was that a
paper-based process still existed. Since B2B e-com-
merce relationships were not formed with all the
partners, the costs associated with a manual system
for printing, mailing, and processing orders were
still incurred.
Suppliers’ Perception
Suppliers’ feedback regarding the success of the
EDI implementation was also generally favorable.
The primary reason for success was given as reduced
cycle time.
Suppliers’ criticism was generally not due to the
implementation process used by the initiators, but
more general as to the difficulties of forming numer-
ous B2B e-commerce relationships with many cus-
tomers. Some of these included:
⦁ different standards used by different customers;
⦁ numerous systems used by different customers.
Some partners want true machine-to-machine
automation; some want the supplier to log on to a
web site and pull the documents (could be in dif-
ferent formats: XML, PDF, text, HTML, etc.); and
some want to push the documents (to e-mail, FTP
drop box, etc.); and
⦁ high initial costs associated with building the
infrastructure and acquiring the necessary tech-
nological skills.
Suppliers that provided criticisms were further
interviewed about what they felt could be done in
order to make it easier for them to form partner-
ships. The supplier’s feedback included:
⦁ A common standard/version of the standard
Some suppliers were frustrated by how often the
EDI standards were changing. Most stated that they
realized why the standard was being modified,
but they felt that the changes were too rapid.
⦁ A single point of contact/standard at the
aerospace company
Since some suppliers conducted business with
multiple divisions at the aerospace company, they
stated that all the divisions should conform to
383 Developing a B2B E-Commerce Implementation Framework
single process. This would allow them to conduct
e-business transactions with all the divisions with
a single set-up.
⦁ Flexibility
Suppliers stated that they dealt with many buy-
ers. They would like to have options in the types
of e-business technologies utilized. For example,
they would like to form true EDI partnerships
with some buyers, but not with others (due to
the cost of EDI set-up). From some buyers that
required electronic transmission of orders, they
would rather receive the order by e-mail or some
other electronic means.
  Suppliers were asked about the types of options
they preferred. They stated that it depended on the
buyers they deal with regards to the following:
− Number of transactions
− Complexity of transactions
For buyers with high volume of transactions, EDI
was beneficial. However, a method for transmis-
sion of complex data (drawings, specifications,
processes, etc.) was necessary. Some of the com-
plex documents could be sent to an e-mail, sent
to the suppliers’ servers (if available), or retrieved
from the buyers’ servers.
  For buyer with low volume of transactions,
the suppliers wanted a single method to receive
orders. They stated that every buyer has different
requirements, making it more difficult to do busi-
ness electronically rather than just receiving an
order in the mail.
  Since some suppliers conducted business with
multiple divisions at the aerospace company, they
stated that all the divisions should conform to
single process. This would allow them to conduct
e-business transactions with all the divisions with
a single set-up.
⦁ Financial Support
Some suppliers felt that the buyer should provide
financial support to offset the initial costs associ-
ated with building the infrastructure and acquir-
ing the necessary technological skills.
 FINDINGS/DISCUSSION
One of the reasons that compelled this study is
that EDI literature seemed to be contradictory regard-
ing the adoption of EDI. As discussed in the intro-
duction, several forecasts and articles discuss how
EDI is evolving and expanding with the growth of
B2B e-commerce (Anonymous, 2007b; Sliwa, 2004;
Sliwa, 2000; Vollmer, 2002).; whereas, other statis-
tics regarding EDI adoption give the impression that
EDI has not been successful in their true potential.
Densmore (1998).showed that whereas 95% of For-
tune 1000 firms have implemented EDI, only 2% of
the remaining 6 million businesses in the U.S. have
done s Furthermore, large companies have had dif-
ficulties motivating their partners to adopt EDI, and
on average have only been able to motivate 20%
of their partners to implement EDI (Chwelos et al.,
2001). This case study showed that the four divisions
of a large aerospace company only pursued EDI
partnerships with suppliers having a high volume
of transactions. A cost/benefit analysis determined
that the costs incurred in forming EDI partnerships
are too high for low volume suppliers (see Figures 2
and 3, E-business Implementation Processes). So, by
design of the initiators’ implementation processes,
only a few suppliers were targeted for a machine-
to-machine e-business solution. Although a low
number of partnerships were formed, in general, the
initiators’ still felt that their implementations were
successful.
FRAMEWORK
The intensive research conducted at the four
divisions of the aerospace company provided infor-
mation to develop an e-business implementation
framework that may be used to assist other large
companies to form e-business partnerships with
their suppliers.
E-Business Implementation
Framework
Although the initiators generally felt that their EDI
implementation initiative was successful, one criti-
cism of the overall initiative was that the paper‑based
A. Asher 384
process was not eliminated. This was due to only
pursuing EDI with the high volume suppliers. The
initiators stated that it was too costly to form true e-
business partnerships with every supplier. The costs
involved in the steps to form the relationship (see
­Figures 2 and 3, E-business Implementation Pro-
cesses) could not be justified for low volume suppli-
ers. Since there were two processes: (1) the automated
EDI process; and (2) the paper-based process, costs
associated with the paper-based process were still
incurred. Furthermore, there were times when sup-
pliers would receive orders both electronically and
by regular mail. Recall that other large companies
have typically only been able to form EDI partner-
ships with only 20% of their suppliers (Chwelos et al.,
2001). So, it is common for large companies to have
an alternate method of communicating with non-
adopting suppliers. For the large company to gain
the benefits of automation, the alternative method
should be paperless.
Each division deals with thousands of suppliers.
However, only several hundred suppliers repre-
sent the majority of their business transactions (see
­Figure 1). Additionally, some suppliers require tech-
nical data, such as drawings, quality specifications,
or computer-aided-design models and others do not.
So, some of the data transmission requirements are
complex, while others are simple. The e-business
solution must be able to accommodate the varying
complexity requirements.
A framework for the formation of successful B2B
e-business partnerships must account for the dif-
ferent types of partnerships. It must account for
the varying number of transactions and the vary-
ing complexity of the transactions. A review of the
literature on partnerships may help in developing
the framework. A partnership can be defined as
relationships between organizations (sometimes
including competitors) to achieve a goal that no one
business can accomplish alone (Kumar & Crook,
1999). At a high level, the partners in the business
must form some type of business relationship for
exchange. Klepper (1993) discusses the range of
options available in outsourcing relationships. Some
of the factors that influence different types of rela-
tionships include duration of contract: long-term
versus short-term, number of exchanges (few versus
many), mutual dependence on ongoing exchange,
and asset specificity.
 A business relationship can be seen as a business
contract for an exchange (e.g., exchange money for
goods or services). The contract could be to man-
age transactions or to manage relations (Macneil,
1978). Managing transactions is based on discrete,
short-term exchanges. Managing relations is based
on multiple exchanges that are expected to continue
over long periods of time. In the case of EDI, the
relationship is entered between the initiator and
adopter for current and future transactions. Thus, a
partnership must be formed and not strictly a mar-
ket exchange type of relationship. Macneil showed
how the law evolved to support various types of
exchange relationships: Classical, Neoclassical,
and Relational. Classical contracts are for discrete
exchanges (e.g., to purchase a personal computer or
a software program). Neoclassical contracts are for
longer-term contracts that require greater flexibility
(e.g., turnkey software that requires conformance to
industry standards)
Williamson (1979, 1985) used Macneil’s catego-
ries to develop a Least-Cost Exchange-Relationships
Framework based on frequency of exchanges and
asset specificity (see Figure 4). Frequency refers to
how often transactions occur. Asset specificity refers
to specialized utilization of the asset and how appli-
cable it is to other utilizations. If the asset is unique
to a particular firm, it is asset specific. Williamson’s
framework is based on transaction cost economics.
ASSET SPECIFICITY
NO YES
OCCASIONAL
Classical Neoclassical
FREQUENCY
RECURRENT
Classical Relational
FIGURE 4  Williamson’s Least Cost Exchange Relationships
Framework.
385 Developing a B2B E-Commerce Implementation Framework
The case study performed at the four divisions
highlighted that the two major issues in developing
EDI partnerships with their suppliers were (1) The
costs associated with forming the relationships were
too high for low volume suppliers; and (2) Some data
transmission requirements were too complex. Note
that the suppliers also had the same concerns in
forming partnerships with numerous buyers. From
the initiators’ perspective these two issues hindered
automation and the potential benefits of e-business
were not realized. Based on the case study and the
literature review (literature on EDI and partnerships)
the following framework has been developed to
guide large companies in the formation of success-
ful B2B e-commerce partnerships (see Figure 5). The
framework addresses the two major issues that were
responsible for the low adoption of EDI: Transaction
Volume (low vs. high) and Transaction Type (simple
vs. complex).
The framework shows that the type IOS e-busi-
ness partnership to pursue depends on the business
volume with the supplier and the complexity of the
transaction. The four alternative e-business solutions
are as follows:
1. Machine-to-Machine E-Commerce
This is true machine-to-machine e-business. Note
that this includes both traditional and Internet-
based EDI.
2. E-Business Pull
This is where documents are placed on a server
for a supplier to access. Documents should be
available to the supplier in a format that is capable
of automated entry into the supplier’s order entry
system (e.g., XML). A supplier may access the doc-
uments manually through a web browser or by an
automated program; for example, a program that
uses FTP to pull the documents from the server to
the supplier’s location.
  The initiators’ should provide programs and/or
technical support to the suppliers for automating
this process. As discussed earlier, a supplier deals
with many buyers. It can be very time consuming
for a supplier to log on to multiple buyers’ serv-
ers in order to retrieve documents. The initiators
should provide a program with parameters for the
suppliers to configure in order to retrieve docu-
ments per their needs. Some of these parameters
include:
 VOLUME OF TRANSACTIONS
LOW
SIMPLE
E-Business Pull
TRANSACTION TYPE
E-Business Pull
COMPLEX
+
Manual E-Transmission or
Partner Access - Extranet / Push
FIGURE 5  Framework for Alternative B2B E-Commerce Solutions.
− Username – Name used to log on to an initia-
tor’s server
− Password – Password used to log on to an ini-
tiator’s server (for security, do not leave pass-
word displayed in plain text)
− Format of the document to be retrieved (XML,
PDF, TXT, etc.)
− Download Location (directory to place down-
loaded files)
− Schedule – How often to run the program
Note that this strategy suggests pulling the data
versus pushing. This is recommended in order
to help establish a closed loop system. If the
data is pulled, a record of the transaction can be
recorded. In a push situation, there are numerous
problems that can occur causing the transmission
to fail (e.g., network at receiving end is down, e-
mail accounts change, servers are down, etc.). If a
push strategy was utilized, an acknowledgement
of receipt would be necessary.
3. Partner Access - Extranet/Push
Some suppliers may have requirements for com-
plex data, such as drawings, quality specifica-
tions, or computer-aided design models. These
complex data elements can be received by the
suppliers’ servers, but they typically can not be
processed by the suppliers’ servers. For exam-
ple, an EDI order transaction can be processed
to automatically create an order on the suppliers’
A. Asher 386
HIGH
Machine-To-Machine
E-Commerce
Machine-To-Machine
E-Commerce
+
Partner Access - Extranet / Push
systems without human intervention, but a draw-
ing needs to be reviewed by a human. In cases
requiring complex data elements, there are not
any standard machine-to-machine transactions
sets for the transmission. So, the initiators need
to provide an electronic method for the suppliers
to access these data elements. The following are
potential solutions:
− Extranet/Supplier Portal
This solution allows the suppliers to connect to
an initiator’s networks in order to access spe-
cific documents. A list of complex data elements
required, if any, can be associated with each
transaction sent from an initiator to a supplier.
This list can be used to automate the process of
providing a supplier access to the complex data
element. One method is for an initiator to copy
each data element in the list to a specific area
that the supplier has access to via the portal.
Another method is to provide the supplier with
links to the documents in the list via the portal.
− Push
With this solution, rather than the suppliers
accessing the documents via the portal, the
documents are sent to the suppliers (e.g. FTP
or e-mail). Note that some of these documents
may be large and if e-mail is used it will need to
accommodate for this. As previously discussed,
a pull methodology is recommended in order
 to establish a closed loop system. The push is
shown here as a potential alternative.
If the initiators’ system accommodates both of
these solutions, a method to determine which
technology to use is necessary. A suppliers’ data-
base containing their preferences can be used.
The database will be queried to determine how a
supplier prefers the complex data elements and in
the case of a push, what technology to use, and
the destination location.
4. Manual E-Transmission
This is a manual method of transmitting complex
data elements, such as FTP or e-mail.
High-volume/Simple transaction
The finding for high volume simple transactions is
not new. Large companies have already been form-
ing true machine-to-machine e-commerce solutions
with these types of suppliers and the framework
confirms this practice. Recall that suppliers with
high volume represent a potential to save a lot of
time and money and reduce errors by automating
manual intervention. Typically, these suppliers are
not mere vendors and represent partners with which
there are close relationships (close relationships with
low volume suppliers could also exist when the total
value of the transactions is high). So, automation of
the information exchange is beneficial to both part-
ners and the framework suggests that it is necessary
to integrate and diffuse as much as possible.
High-volume/Complex transaction
As discussed above, due to having a high volume
of transactions, a true machine-to-machine partner-
ship should be pursued. Complex data elements
have been difficult to automate by an e-commerce
solution. The framework suggests using the “Partner
Access—Extranet/Push” option.
Low-volume/Simple transaction
Due to the low volume, both the initiators and
potential partners have resisted forming an auto-
mated e-commerce solution. However, in order for
387 Developing a B2B E-Commerce Implementation Framework
the initiator to eliminate the paper-based system, the
data needs to be provided to the supplier electroni-
cally. If the paper-based system remains, it interferes
with the machine-to-machine e-commerce solution,
as there is a potential to send duplicate data to the
partner (electronically and manually). In addition,
some of the costs and delays of the paper based sys-
tem remain. A pull methodology is recommended in
order to establish a closed loop system.
Even in low volume situations, the suppliers
should have an opportunity to automate the process
of receiving the order. For example, they should not
be required to use a web browser to connect to a
site and download their orders. During the interview
process, several suppliers stated that they conduct
business with numerous companies who require
them to manually log in to different sites using differ-
ent user ids, different passwords, etc., and download
documents. This is a very time consuming process.
It is the responsibility of the aerospace division to
provide a method to automate the process. How-
ever, the decision to automate and responsibility of
automation resides with the supplier.
Low-volume/Complex transaction
In low volume high complexity situations, the
framework suggests to provide the complex data
through either “Partner Access—Extranet/Pull” or a
manual e-transmission solution. A decision has to
be made if the requirement for the complex data
with the specific supplier will be a one-time or an
on-going requirement. If it is a one-time require-
ment, then manual e-transmission of the docu-
ment is appropriate. Otherwise, a “Partner access
– Extranet/Push” account should be created and an
evaluation of forming a B2B e-commerce partner-
ship should be performed.
Framework Discussion/Update
The recommended solutions in the framework are
based on current technology and EDI/XML standards.
As enhancements in e-business Internet solutions
develop and standards evolve, potential e-business
solutions and the criteria for using each will change.
The theme of the framework is that ­partnerships are
established with suppliers having different capabili-
ties (e.g., traditional EDI capability or web-based EDI
capability) and for different reasons (e.g., many trans-
actions vs. a one-time transaction). Therefore, there
should be various B2B e-commerce solutions for the
different types of suppliers. As discussed in the EDI
review, providing flexibility in e-business solutions
was proven to be successful for FedEx (Williams &
Frolick, 2001). This framework provides a guideline
for the type of e-business solutions to pursue with
suppliers based on transaction cost economics and
contingency theory. Transaction cost economics pro-
vides a justification for the upfront investment of a
machine-to-machine e-business solution when there
are many transactions. Contingency theory justifies
the different e-business solution for different types
of suppliers.
LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE STUDIES
The B2B e-commerce implementation framework
developed is based on a case study of four division
of a large corporation, each having low-level author-
ity in the process of forming IOS e-business part-
nerships. The author believes that the framework
is applicable to other large corporations pursuing
e-business solutions with many suppliers. How-
ever, care must be taken in generalizing this study’s
results. Recall that on average large companies have
only been able to motivate 20% of their partners to
implement EDI (Chwelos et al., 2001). Future stud-
ies can be performed to confirm that other large
companies only targeted true machine-to-machine
partnerships with their high transaction volume
suppliers and to determine how these companies
dealt with the remaining suppliers. Furthermore,
large companies may be surveyed to determine if
they perceive that the e-business implementation
framework developed in this study would help form
successful B2B e-commerce partnerships. Longitu-
dinal studies could provide information as to what
type of e-business partnerships, if any, did large
companies form with the 80% of the suppliers not
interested in true machine-to-machine e-commerce
partnerships. Finally, this study was performed in
the aerospace manufacturing industry and results
for other industries, such as sales and services may
be different.
A. Asher 388
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
The motivation for this study was to develop
a B2B e-commerce implementation framework.
Another motivation that compelled this study is
that EDI adoption statistics give the impression that
EDI implementations have not been as successful
and their potential. This case study showed that the
four divisions of a large aerospace company only
pursued EDI partnerships with suppliers having a
high volume of transactions. A cost/benefit analysis
determined that the costs incurred in forming EDI
partnerships are too high for low volume suppliers
(see Figures 2 and 3, E-business Implementation
Processes). So, by design of the initiators’ implemen-
tation processes, only a few suppliers were targeted
for a machine-to-machine e-business solution.
In addition to explaining why only a few EDI
partnerships were formed, this study also found that
the initiators felt more benefits could be gained by
pursing additional e-commerce solutions. Interview
data was collected and analyzed from both partners
in the relationship to gain an understanding of why
the relationship was formed, the process by which it
was formed, and the perceptions of the process. The
analysis of the interview data combined with the
literature review led to the development of the B2B
e-commerce implementation framework. Since not
all relationships with suppliers are the same: some
suppliers are close partners and others are simply
vendors, different types of IOS e-business solutions
must be used. The e-business relationship to be pur-
sued depends on the volume of transactions with a
supplier (low or high) and on the complexity of the
transactions (simple or complex). The framework
provides a guideline as to the type of relationship
to pursue in order for companies to form successful
e-business partnerships.
REFERENCES
Anonymous. (2006). B2B Trends. Information Outlook, 10, 6–7.
Anonymous. (2007a). B2B market to touch Rs 3,800 cr. Businessline, 1.
Anonymous. (2007b). U.S. Census Bureau E-Stats. Last retrieved June 8,
2007 from http://www.census.gov/eos/www/ebusiness614.htm
Banerjee, S. & Sriram, V. (1995). The impact of electronic data inter-
change on purchasing: An empirical investigation. International
Journal of Operations and Production Management, 15 (3), 29–38.
Barrett, M. (1999). Challenges of EDI Adoption for Electronic Trading
in the London Insurance Market. European Journal of Information
Systems, 8 (1)1–15.
Bartels, A., Hudson, R., and Pohlmann, T. (2003). ISM/Forrester Report
on Technology in Supply Management: Q3 2003. ForresterResearch.com
http://www.forrester.com/ER/Research/Brief/0,1317,33008.FF.html
Carter, J. R. & Fredenall, L. D. (1990). The Dollars and Sense of Electronic
Data Interchange. Production and Inventory Management Journal,
31 (2), 22–26.
Chwelos, P., Benbasat, I., & Dexter, A. S. (2001). Research Report: Empir-
ical Test of an EDI Adoption Model. Information Systems Research,
12 (3), 304–321.
Cragg, P. B. & King, M. (1993). Small Firm Computing: Motivators and
Inhibitors. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 17 (2,),
47–59.
DeJesus, E. X. (2001, January 8). EDI? XML? Or Both. Computerworld.
Retrieved June 6, 2007 from http://www.computerworld.com/
managementtopics/ebusiness/story/0,10801,55904,00.html
Densmore, B. (1998). EDI vs. the new kids. from http://www.
computerworld.com/home/Emmerce.nsf/All/980406edi
Downing, C. E. (2002). Performance of traditional and web-based EDI.
Information Systems Management, 19 (1), 49.
Emmelhainz, M. A. (1988). Strategic Issues of EDI Implementation. Jour­
nal of Business Logistics, 9 (2), 55–70.
Grover, V. (1993). An empirically derived model for the adoption of cus-
tomer-based interorganizational systems, In Decision Sciences (Vol.
24, pp. 603–639).
Grover, V., Cheon, M. J., & Teng, J. T. C. (1996). The Effect of Service
Quality and Partnership on the Outsourcing of Information Systems
Functions. Journal of Management Information Systems, 12 (4),
89–116.
Hart, P. J., & Saunders, C. S. (1998). Emerging Electronic Partner-
ships: Antecedents and Dimensions of EDI Use from the Supplier’s
Perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 14 (4),
87–111.
Iacovou, C. L., Benbasat, I., & Dexter, A. S. (1995). Electronic data inter-
change and small organizations: Adoption and impact of technol-
ogy. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 19 (4), 465–485.
Iacovou, C. L., Izak, B., & Dexter, A. S. (1995). Electronic data inter-
change and small organizations: Adoption and impact of technol-
ogy. MIS Quarterly, 19 (4), 465.
Jai-Yeol, S., Narasimhan, S., & Riggins, F. J. (2005). Effects of Relational
Factors and Channel Climate on EDI Usage in the Customer-Supplier
Relationship. Journal of Management Information Systems, 22 (1),
321–353.
Jai-Yeol, S., Sridhar, N., & Frederick, J. R. (2005). Effects of Relational
Factors and Channel Climate on EDI Usage in the Customer-Supplier
Relationship. Journal of Management Information Systems, 22 (1),
321.
Kay, R. (2004, December 13). QuickStudy: Value-Added Networks.
Computerworld. Retrieved June 25, 2007 from http://www.comput-
erworld.com/printthis/2004/0,4814,18155,00.html
Klepper, R. (1993). Developing Efficient Relationships with I/S Vendors:
A Contingency Framework. Paper presented at the Association for
Computing Machinery. Special Interest Group on Computer and Per-
sonnel Research Annual Conference. Proceedings of the 1993 con-
ference on computer personnel research, St-Louis, Missouri, April
1–3, 1993. p. 197–205.
Kumar, R. L. & Crook, C. W. (1999). A Multi-Disciplinary Framework for
the Management of Interorganizational Systems. The DATA BASE for
Advances in Information Systems, 30 (1), 22–37.
Macneil, I. R. (1978). Contracts—Adjustment of Long-Term Economic
Relations Under Classical, Neoclassical, and Relational Contract Law.
Northwestern University Law Review, 72 (6), 854–901.
Martin, P. Y. & Turner, B. A. (1986). Grounded Theory and Organiza-
tional Research. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 22 (2),
141–157.
McKendrik, J. (2001, March). Still Rising. Electronic Commerce World,
11, 28–35.
Myers, M. D. (1997). Qualitative Research in Information Systems. Man­
agement Information Systems Quarterly, 21 (2), 241–242.
389 Developing a B2B E-Commerce Implementation Framework
Nam, K., Rajagopalan, S., Rao, H. R., & Chaudhury, A. (1996). A two-
level investigation of information systems outsourcing. Communica­
tions of the ACM, 39 (7), 36–44.
Pfeiffer, H. K. C. (1992). The Diffusion of Electronic Data Interchange.
New York: Springer-Verlag.
Premkumar, G., Ramamurthy, K., & Nilakanta, S. (1994). Implementation
of electronic data interchange: An innovation diffusion perspective.
Journal of Management Information Systems, 11 (2), 157–186.
Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations.(4thed.). New York: The
Free Press.
Saunders, C. & Clark, S. (1992). EDI Adoption and Implementation: A
Focus on Interorganizational Linkages. Information Resources Man­
agement Journal, 5 (1), 9–9.
Scheier, R. L. (2003, January 20). Internet EDI Grows Up. Computer­
world. http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command
=viewArticletoc&SpecialReportID=160&articleid=77636
Sliwa, C. (2004, June 14). EDI: Alive and Well After All These Years. Com­
puterworld. http://www.computerworld.com/managementtopics/
ebusiness/story/0,10801,93808,00.html
Sliwa, C. (2000, 05/01/2000). EDI Dinosaur Lives—and Grows. Computer­
world, p. 1.
strategis.gc.ca. (2003). E-commerce Statistics and Sources. Retrieved
January 20, 2006 from http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/internet/ine-
com-come.nsf/en/h_qy00010e.html
Subramani, M. (2004). How do suppliers benefit from information tech-
nology use in supply chain relationships?[1]. MIS Quarterly, 28 (1),
45–73.
Suzuki, Y. & Williams, L. (1998). Analysis of EDI resistance behavior.
Transportation Journal, 37 (4), 36–44.
Swatman, P. M. C. & Swatman, P. A. (1991). Electronic Data Interchange:
Organisational Opportunity, Not Technical Problem. In B. Srinivasan
& J. Zeleznikow (Eds.)Databases in the 1990s, (354–374), World Sci-
entific Press, Singapore.
Swatman, P. M. C. & Swatman, P. A. (1992). EDI System Integration: A Def-
inition and Literature Survey. The Information Society, 8, 169–205.
Teo, H. H., Wei, K. K., & Benbasat, I. (2003). Predicting intention to
adopt interorganizational linkages: an institutional perspective. MIS
Quarterly, 27 (1), 19–49.
Tornatzky, L. G. & Klein, J. K. (1982). Innovation Characteristics and
Innovation Adoption-Implementation: A Meta-Analysis of Findings.
IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, EM-29 (1), 28–45.
Vollmer, K. (2002). Market Overview: EDI Software and Services, Giga
Information Group, Inc.
Williams, L. (1994). Understanding distribution channels: An Interorga-
nizational Study of EDI Adoption. Journal of Business Logistics, 15
(2), 173–203.
Williams, L., Magee, G., & Suzuki, Y. (1998). A multidimensional view of
EDI: Testing the value of EDI participation to firms. Journal of Busi­
ness Logistics, 19 (2), 73–87.
Williams, M. L., & Frolick, M. N. (2001). The evolution of edi for competi-
tive advantage: The FEDEX case. Information Systems Management,
18 (2), 47.
Williamson, O. E. (1979). Transaction-Cost Economics—The Governance
of Contractual Relations. Journal of Law and Economics, 22 (2),
233–261.
Williamson, O. E. (1985). The Economic Institutions of Capitalism. New
York: The Free Press.
Witte, C. L., Grunhagen, M., & Clarke, R. L. (2003). The integration
of EDI and the internet. Information Systems Management, 20 (4),
58–65.
BIOGRAPHY
Abraham Asher is an Assistant Professor in Information
Systems at the College of Business Administration at Cali-
fornia State University, Long Beach. He earned a Ph.D.
in information systems from the Claremont ­ Graduate
­ niversity, an MBA from the Drucker Graduate School of
U Fullerton. His current research interests include e-com-
Management at Claremont Graduate University, an MS in merce, global IT outsourcing, management of information
mathematics from the University of Southern California, systems, systems security, web services, and computer
and a BA in mathematics from California State University, mediated communications.

A. Asher 390