Skip to main content
Add as a preferred source on Google

Forward vs. Reverse Auctions

  • 09/01/13

In a nutshell, there are really only two categories of auctions — forward and reverse auctions. There may be variations with these based on a number of factors, including the progress of the auction and the criteria for determining the “winner” of the auction.

Forward auctions take the form of a single seller offering an item for sale, with buyers competing to secure the item by bidding the price upward. Forward auctions are far-better understood by the public at large than reverse auctions as to how they operate, due primarily to the fact that they are widely used at the consumer level. They are also widely used when the goal is for the seller to receive the most money possible for the item being offered at auction. Thus, a forward auction should be utilized for sales of goods and services of all types, whether conducted online, offline or a hybrid of the two.

Reverse auctions are the other major form of auctions. In a reverse auction, a single buyer makes potential sellers aware of their intent to buy a specified good or service. During the course of the actual reverse auction event, the sellers bid against one another to secure the buyer’s business, driving the price to be paid for the item downward. Thus, the winning bidder is the seller who offers the lowest price. Reverse auctions are most typically used for procurement by private companies, public sector agencies and nonprofit organizations.

Reverse auctions are not a short-term tactic for procurement operations, but are, in fact, a proven method for long-term management of indirect spend — delivering significant savings and process efficiency. For more information on reverse auctions and the procurement process, visit Reverse Auction Research online at www.reverseauctionresearch.org.

Source: Reverse Auction Research (www.reverseauctionresearch.org)

This article originally appeared in the College Planning & Management September 2013 issue of Spaces4Learning.

Featured

  • Chartwells Launches Campus Dining Evaluation Framework

    Contract food-service management provider Chartwells Higher Education recently announced the launch of BLUEPRINT, according to a news release. The evaluation framework was designed to provide a data-driven and customizable roadmap towards optimizing campus dining services and, by extension, the student experience.

  • school building with glowing circuit board patterns

    AI Is Coming to Schools — But Most School Buildings Still Run on Institutional Memory

    As school districts race to introduce AI into classrooms, administration, and curriculum planning, another conversation is happening behind the scenes: How prepared are school facilities themselves for the operational demands AI will create?

  • Rethinking K-12 Schools as a Continuous Learning Experience

    Most students move through three or more separate facilities during their K-12 journey, yet the built environments they encounter at each stage have traditionally been designed in isolation, with little continuity in spatial language, learning philosophy, or physical resources. Each new school is a reset with different layouts, learning models, expectations, and ways of moving through a building. The next generation of school design is making the case that the first day of kindergarten and the last day of high school can and should feel connected through common support systems and infrastructure in the physical environment.

  • Minnesota District Converts Middle School into Community Hub

    White Bear Lake Area Schools in White Bear Lake, Minn., recently announced the end of a major renovation project that converted a former middle school into a new centralized district and community hub, according to a news release.