| dc.contributor.author |
Zinner Henriksen, Helle |
en_US |
| dc.contributor.author |
Viborg Andersen, Kim |
en_US |
| dc.date.accessioned |
2009-02-04T10:23:47Z |
|
| dc.date.available |
2009-02-04T10:23:47Z |
|
| dc.date.issued |
2003-11-19T00:00:00Z |
en_US |
| dc.identifier.uri |
http://hdl.handle.net/10398/6475 |
|
| dc.description.abstract |
During the mid to late 1990s, shaping diffusion of B2B e-commerce was a key priority for governments and business associations. Viewing e-commerce as the key to continuous economic growth and a vehicle for transformation to the digital economy, national action plans were formulated to accelerate the standard development and adoption of e-commerce. This chapter argues that the Danish EDI Action Plan from 1996 cemented structural problems for the ongoing adoption and diffusion of newer B2B technologies due to a discrepancy between goals and actions, imbalanced partner allocation in standard development and an overwhelming focus on the public sector despite ambitions to fuel the overall business adoption of B2B e-commerce. |
en_US |
| dc.format.extent |
22 s. |
en_US |
| dc.language |
dan |
en_US |
| dc.relation.ispartofseries |
Working Paper;2003-02 |
en_US |
| dc.subject.other |
politiske beslutningsprocesser |
en_US |
| dc.subject.other |
erhvervsorganisationer |
en_US |
| dc.subject.other |
ikt |
en_US |
| dc.subject.other |
erhvervspolitik |
en_US |
| dc.subject.other |
edi |
en_US |
| dc.subject.other |
b2b-elektronisk handel |
en_US |
| dc.title |
B2B e-commerce diffusion |
en_US |
| dc.type |
wp |
en_US |
| dc.accessionstatus |
modt03nov19 inrumo |
en_US |
| dc.contributor.corporation |
Copenhagen Business School. CBS |
en_US |
| dc.contributor.department |
Institut for Informatik |
en_US |
| dc.contributor.departmentshort |
INF |
en_US |
| dc.contributor.departmentuk |
Department of Informatics |
en_US |
| dc.contributor.departmentukshort |
INF |
|
| dc.idnumber |
x656314469 |
en_US |
| dc.publisher.city |
København |
en_US |
| dc.publisher.year |
2003 |
en_US |
| dc.title.subtitle |
the efficacy of institutional discourse |
en_US |