Advertisement

Group Decision and Negotiation

, Volume 14, Issue 4, pp 285–306 | Cite as

Cultural Dimensions and Prototypical Criteria for Multi-Criteria Decision Support in Electronic Markets: A Comparative Analysis of Two Job Markets

  • Anne-Francoise Rutkowski
  • Bartel Van De Walle
Article

Abstract

Electronic markets are virtual meeting places where buyers and sellers interact to trade products or services. The main motivation for both buyers and sellers to participate in an electronic market is the desire to maximize their private utility (Bakos 1998). Electronic markets therefore usually provide some form of communication, decision or negotiation aid for buyers and sellers to support their utility maximizing goals. This paper presents a comparative analysis of two electronic job market case studies conducted at a university in Europe (Brussels, Belgium) and in the United States (Newark, New Jersey). At the occasion of the universities’ career fairs, students (n = 392) and local companies (n = 57) were invited to participate in an electronic job market to identify the best job offers (n = 137) and students, respectively. Participants were able to create personalized software agents to aid their search and decision making activities in the market. Every software agent was embedded with a multi-criteria decision support tool to produce a rank ordered list of students or job offers. Preference data gathered from market participants’ use of the multi-criteria decision model allow us to construct relational preference structures using a technique based on the mathematical theory of fuzzy relations (Bandler and Kohout 1980). These preference structures express relationships among the criteria that students and companies have used to identify job offers and companies, respectively. The purpose of the paper is to present the communicative and cultural implications of these relational preference structures. The theories of Hofstede (1983), Hall (1977) and Trompenaars (1993) on cultural dimensions allow us to discuss cultural differences on the choice of prototypical criteria. The paper concludes with implications for the use of electronic markets in the staffing industry and the role of software agents in such job markets.

Keywords

electronic job markets decision support systems multi-criteria decision analysis fuzzy relational compositions cultural values prototypical criteria social identity theory 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ariba (2001). B2B Marketplaces in the New Economy. White paper from Ariba Inc., Mountain View, California.Google Scholar
  2. Bakos, Y. (1998). “The Emerging Role of Electronic Marketplaces on the Internet,” Communication ACM 41(8), 35–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bandler, W. and L. J. Kohout. (1980). “Fuzzy Relational Products as a Tool for Analysis and Synthesis of the behavior of complex Natural and Artificial Systems,” in: Wang, S.K. and P.P. Wang (eds.), Fuzzy Sets: Theory and Application to Policy Analysis and Information Systems. New York and London: Plenum Press, pp 341–367.Google Scholar
  4. Bandler, W. and L. J. Kohout. (1986). “Mathematical Relations,” in International Encyclopedia of Systems and Control, M.G. Singh et al., New York: Pergamon Press, pp. 4000–4008.Google Scholar
  5. Beam, C., A. Segev, M. Bichler, and R. Krishnan. (1999). “On Negotiations and Deal Making in Electronic Markets,” Information Systems Frontier 1(3), 241–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bellman, R. E. and L. A. Zadeh. (1970). “Decision-Making in a Fuzzy Environment,” Management Science 17(4), 141–164.Google Scholar
  7. Coffin M. A. and B. W. Taylor. (1996). “Multiple Criteria R&D Project Selection and Scheduling Using Fuzzy Logic,” Computers Operation Research 23(3), 207–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Deb, S. K., B. Bhattacharyya, and S. K. Sorkhel. (2002). “Material Handling Equipment Selection by Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods,” Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
  9. Ember, C. R. and M. Ember. (1985). Anthropology and Cultural Anthropology, Fourth Editions (by Carol R. Ember and Melvin Ember). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  10. Fjermestad, J. and R. Hiltz. (2000). “Group Support Systems: A Descriptive Evaluation of Case and Field Studies,” Journal of Management Information Systems 17, 115–159.Google Scholar
  11. Gergen, K. J., A. L. Massey, A. Gulerce, and M. Misra. (1996). “Psychological Science in Cultural Context,” American Psychologist 51, 496–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gudykunst, W. and Y. Kim. (1988). Theories in Intercultural Communication, Newbury Park, CA Sage.Google Scholar
  13. Hall, E. T. (1977). Beyond Culture. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press.Google Scholar
  14. Hodgetts, R. M. and F. Luthans. (2000). International Management, 4th ed. McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  15. Hofstede, G. (1980). Cultures Consequences: International Differences in Word Related Values, Sage.Google Scholar
  16. Hofstede, G. (1983). “National Cultures Revisited,” Behaviour Science Research 18(4), 285–305.Google Scholar
  17. Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, London: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  18. Hofstede, G. (1999). Problems Remain, But Theories Will Change: The Universal and the Specific in 21st Century Global Management, Organizational Dynamics: A Quarterly Review of Organization Behavior for Professional Managers 28(1), 34–44.Google Scholar
  19. Holland, C. P. (2001). Competition and Strategy in Electronic Marketplaces. Proceedings of 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences HICSS 2001, pp. 2947–2956Google Scholar
  20. Khubani, V. (2004). “Electronic Marketplaces and Their Role in the Staffing Industry,” Masters Thesis New Jersey Institute of Technology (Information Systems Department).Google Scholar
  21. Kwon H., I. Im, and B. Van de Walle. (2002). “Are You Thinking What I am Thinking? – A Comparison of Decision Makers’ Cognitive Maps by Means of a New Similarity Measure,” In: Proceedings of 35th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences HICSS 2002, pp. 78–88.Google Scholar
  22. Leug, K. (1987). “Some Determinants of Reactions to Procedural Models for Conflict Resolution: A Cross-National Study,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 53, 898–908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Leug, K. (1987). “Some Determinants of Conflict Avoidance,” Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology 19, 125–136.Google Scholar
  24. Maes, P., R. H. Guttman, and A. G. Moukas. (1999). “Agents That Buy and Sell: Transforming Commerce as we Know It,” Communication ACM 42(3), 81–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Malone, T., J. Yates, and R. Benjamin. (1987). “Electronic Markets and Electronic Hierarchies,” Communication ACM 30, 484–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Myers, M. D. and F. B. Tan. (2202). “Beyond Model of National Culture in Information Systems Research,” Journal of Global Information Management 10(1), 24–32Google Scholar
  27. Mejias, R., M. Sheppard, D. Vogel, and L. Lazaneo. (1997). “Consensus and Perceived Satisfaction Levels: A Cross-Cultural Comparison of GSS and Non-GSS Outcomes Within and Between the U.S. and Mexico,” Journal of MIS 13(3), 137–161.Google Scholar
  28. Ngai, E. W. T. and F. K. T. Wat. (2004). “Fuzzy Decision Support for Risk Analysis in E-commerce Development,” Decision Support Systems (in press).Google Scholar
  29. Osherson, D. N. and E. E. Smith. (1981). “On the Adequacy of Prototype Theory as a Theory of Concepts,” Cognition Feb. 9(1), 35–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Oudenhoven van, J. P., L. Mechelse, and C. K. W. de Dreu. (1998). “Managerial Conflict Management in Five European Country: The Importance of Power Distance, Uncertainty Avoidance, and Masculinity,” Applied Psychology: An International Review 47(3), 439–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rothbart, M., S. Fulero, C. Jensen, J. Howard, and P. Birrel. (1978). “From Individual to Group Impressions: Availability Heuristics in Stereotype Formation,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 14, 237–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Roubens, M. and Ph. Vincke. (1985). Preference Modeling, Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems 250, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
  33. Rutkowski, A.-F., D. Vogel, M. J. I. M. van Genuchten, and T. M. A. Bemelmans. (2004). The HKNET Project: E-Collaboration and Virtual Team Identity, Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Information System, Turku, Finland.Google Scholar
  34. Sia, C., B. Tan and K. K. Wei. (2002). “Group Polarization and Computer-Mediated Communication: Effects of Communication Cues, Social Presence, and Anonymity,” Information Systems Research, 13(1), 70–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Straub, D., K. Loch, R. Evaristo, E. Karahanna, and M. Srite. (2002). “Toward a Theory-Based Measurement of Culture”, Journal of Global Management Information Management 10(1), January–March, pp. 13–23.Google Scholar
  36. Ströbel, M. (2000). Effects of Electronic Markets on Negotiation Processes. In: Proceedings of the ECIS 2000 Conference, 445–452.Google Scholar
  37. Tajfel, H. (1981). Human Groups and Social Categories, Cambridge, University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Ting-Toomey, S. et al. (1991). “Culture, Face Maintenance, and Styles of Handling Interpersonal Conflict. A Study in Five Cultures,” International Journal of Conflict Management 2, 253–330.Google Scholar
  39. Triandis, H. C. (1994). Culture and Social Behaviour. New York, McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  40. Trompenaars, F. (1993). Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Cultural Diversity in Business. London: The Economist Books.Google Scholar
  41. Turban E., J. Lee, D. Kind, and H. M. Chung. (1999). Electronic Commerce. A Managerial Perspective. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  42. Van de Walle, B. (1997). The Existence, Construction and Characterization of Fuzzy Preference Structures. Ph.D. Thesis (in Dutch).Google Scholar
  43. Van de Walle, B. (2003a). “A Relational Analysis of Decision Makers’ Preferences,” International Journal of Intelligent Systems 18, 775–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Van de Walle, B. (2003b). “Relational Structures for the Analysis of Decision Information in Electronic Markets, in Applied Decision Support with Soft Computing,” X. Yu and J. Kacprzyck (eds.), Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing Series 124, 196—217.Google Scholar
  45. Van de Walle, B. and P. Faratin. (2001). “Fuzzy Preferences for Multi-Criteria Negotiation,” AAAI Technical Report FS-01-03, 116—119.Google Scholar
  46. Van de Walle, B., B. De Baets, and E. E. Kerre. (1995), “Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Analysis of Cutting Techniques in a Nuclear Reactor Dismantling Project,” Fuzzy Sets and Systems 74, 115–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Van de Walle, B., S. Heitsch, and P. Faratin. (2001). Coping with One-to-Many Multi-Criteria Negotiations in an Electronic Marketplace. In: Proceedings of the eNegotiations Workshop at DEXIA’01, 747–751.Google Scholar
  48. Van Heck, E. and P. M. A. Ribbers. (1997). “Experiences with Electronic Auctions in the Dutch Flower Industry,” International Journal of Electronic Markets 7(4), pp. 29–34.Google Scholar
  49. Weller, T. (2000). B2B eCommerce – the Rise of emarketplaces. Legg Mason Wood Walker Equity Research Report.Google Scholar
  50. Zadeh, L. A. (1965). “Fuzzy Sets,” Information and Control 8, 338—353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Zimmermann, H. J. (1991). Fuzzy Set Theory and its Application. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishing.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anne-Francoise Rutkowski
    • 1
  • Bartel Van De Walle
    • 1
  1. 1.Information Systems and Management DepartmentTilburg UniversityThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations