Content uploaded by Lex Van Teeffelen
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Lex Van Teeffelen on Nov 02, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Market-based standards for matching platforms
in the SME business transfers market
October 2015
Lex van Teeffelen (PhD)
Professor of Finance and Firm Acquisitions
HU Business School Utrecht
Netherlands
lex.vanteeffelen@hu.nl
Edwin Weesie (MSc)
Doctoral Researcher Business Transfers
HU Business School Utrecht
Netherlands
edwin.weesie@hu.nl
2
Index
Chapter 1: Introduction 3
Chapter 2: Defining matching platforms and their services 5
Methodology 5
Outcomes of the open questions 6
Conclusions 9
Chapter 3: Evidence-based standards for digital matching 10
Chapter 4: Building a framework to assess digital quality 12
Content quality 12
Design quality 14
Organizational quality 15
User-friendliness 15
Chapter 5: Selecting indicators 17
Quality indicators 18
References 19
Annex 1: European Commission’s Criteria (2006) 21
Annex 2: Qutob and Van Teeffelen’s Criteria (2009) 22
Annex 3: EU4BT Criteria (2015) 23
Annex 4: Survey for Market-Based Standards 24
3
1. Introduction
The EU4BT-project is designed to improve the environment for business transfer by using
web-based matching platforms. It aims to develop standards related to buyer-seller platforms
to ensure the quality of the services provided.
The most recent observations concerning the development of matching platforms are provided
by Evaluation of the Implementation of the 2006 Commission Communication on Business
Transfers (EC, 2013; p. 110 ):
1. National authorities should encourage the development of on-line provision for both
micro enterprises and larger more complex SMEs.
2. All sites should be encouraged to provide access to impartial advice and the quality of
the information posted should be monitored. There is a strong case for mediation in
sites with larger SMEs and more complex deals.
3. Quality standards for platforms could be developed, with corresponding certification
systems in order to promote their credibility and the trust of their users. The operators
of such sites could be encouraged to co-operate in developing and implementing such
standards.
4. Sites should be encouraged to link with other sites, including sites from other
countries.
In setting market-based standards, it is believed, cooperation and quality of matching
platforms can be increased. So far the number of matching platforms in the EU Member
States have grown and existing ones matured. Still market-based standards have shown to be
hard to implement, although the outlines were defined already in 2006 (European
Commission, 2006). We will describe some of the probable causes why implementation is sub
optimal.
Small group setting the standards
So far a limited number of public or quasi-public matching platforms were involved in setting
the standards (European Commission, 2006). The experts defining standards for matching
platforms, are largely government officials of representatives and/or the chambers of
commerce (European Commission,2006). During the past ten years private platforms have
become more and more sophisticated, including online tooling for preparation, support and
finance (European Commission, 2013). The need for a viable business model or break-even
models being able to survive without EU, government or regional funding, has hardly been
considered. So far newer platforms have not been invited to conceive a set of quality
standards. The EU4BT-project invites platforms with a variety of business models to share on
(quality) standards.
No systematic evaluation
Platforms have hardly been evaluated by impartial parties over the past decade. There is only
one study known, rating 15 matching platforms systematically in the Netherlands, using most
of the EC pre-defined criteria (Qutob and Van Teeffelen, 2009). If there is no evaluation in
place, matching platforms are at liberty to operate in ways they seem fit to.
4
Changing dynamics
So far most matching platforms for business transfers cover regions or nations (European
Commission, 2013). Business, also for smaller firms, is increasingly becoming international.
Recent business reports indicate a stronger interest of small family firms to expand
internationally by taking over firms abroad (KPMG, 2014). Quality assurances and minimal
standards may enable further cooperation and sharing of profiles between platforms.
No search for prior evidence
Though direct studies on business transfer matching platforms are extremely rare, evidence of
studies on other kind of double-sided B2B matching platforms have been overlooked. These
studies, in similar fields, bringing different parties together web-based, may show
mechanisms useful for the SME business transfer matching market also. Chapter 3 will add
main findings of the academic study to the more general market standards for daily operating
matching platforms (Van Teeffelen and Weesie, 2015).
In opening up to a wider number of platforms, formulating quality standards from within,
assessing platforms directly upon these criteria and having an open mind for new
developments and prior knowledge, a more fruitful implementation of criteria is to be
expected.
The next paragraphs will outline a conceptual framework to define a set of quality for
matching platforms for business transfers.
Acknowledgements
The authors like to express their gratitude to the members of the reviewing committee and the
expert group. Céline Barredy, Associate Professor of Finance and Family Firm Governance
(Université Paris Ouest Nanterre La Défense) and Miguel Meuleman, Professor of
Entrepreneurship (Vlerick Business School) supported the academic review on definitions,
methodology and operationalization. Martijn Westerlaken, Rosalie van Rijk, Marie
Depelssemaker (Transeo Board Members), Nicolas Pirotte (Sowaccess) and Oriol Alba
(Reempressa) gave valuable inputs and suggestions on the survey questionnaire, alongside
with all members of the expert group of matching platform owners.
5
2. Defining matching platforms and their services
In the absence of academic research on business transfer matching platforms, we looked into
characteristics by using the descriptions of the European Commission (2006) in Annex 1,
Qutob and Van Teeffelen (2009) in Annex 2 and the definition the EU4BT (2014) partners in
Annex 3. By and large these descriptions are rather a mix of requirements and wished for
quality standards, without directly addressing the needs and expectations of sellers, buyers
and advisors acting on these platforms. For example, the European Commission (2006)
wishes for national platforms by neutral and impartial party, preferably by the chambers of
commerce. Qutob and Van Teeffelen (2009) and EU4BT (2014) building on the European
Commission criteria mention standards like up-to-date and checked profiles, direct contact
and complaint procedures, transparency of platform ownership and business models. They
also mention ICT-tooling, matching methodologies and additional services.
Methodology
We collected qualitative data, trying to define matching platforms and their requirements in
two rounds among business transfers advisors and representatives of matching platforms. In
round 1, 30 business transfer advisors from 10 EU countries being lawyers, negotiation
experts, platform owners, SME representatives and academic business transfer researchers –
excluding the authors – participated in a discussion at the General Assembly of Transeo on
May 21st 2015. Nearly all participants are active in SME business transfers on a frequent or
daily basis. The total group was divided in 5 tables of 6 discussants and a moderator. Each
table discussed 3 out of 5 questions on defining matching platforms, their expectations of
services, difference between buyers and sellers, important features and quality standards. The
discussions were guided by a moderator per table. The moderators role was to let all
professionals talk in an orderly fashion and make notes of the most salient details offered
during the 45 minute discussions. All participants were asked to fill in the questionnaire with
the open questions first and after that elaborated on their answer in the discussion. After the
45 minutes discussion all individual questionnaires were collected.
These questionnaires were analyzed in a qualitative fashion. Atlas.ti 2013 was used to import
all the documents. Coding took place in three steps. In the first code step one of the researcher
openly coded all the comments of all the filled in questions except for the main researchers
involved to avoid bias. As a result 198 individual codes emerged in 30 completed questions
lists. In the second step the two researchers discussed the main themes of the various
questions and decided on a data reduction process resulting in 170 codes. In the third step all
codes were imported into a word cloud. The word cloud was analyzed by the authors.
To add meaning to the main outcomes and to cross validate the findings a second round of
information was collected in a special Expert Group Meeting on June 16th 2015 in Brussels.
This time the participants were representatives of 15 European matching platforms was
organized of. The platforms are based in Germany (2), UK (1), France (2), Spain (2), the
Netherlands (3), Finland (2), Belgium (2) and Luxembourg (1). The group of 15 was divided
in 3 tables of 5 discussants and a moderator. Each table discussed on 3 questions: typologies
of matching platforms and their business models, the type of services offered and the quality
minimal and maximal quality standards. All participants filled in the three open questions first
and after that elaborated on their answer at the round table. After the 45 minutes discussion all
individual questionnaires were collected. The similarities in the individual and moderators
notes, and the overall summary given by each group in rounding up discussion, were used as
main inputs for the additional and more in depth comments.
6
Outcomes on the open questions
1. What is your definition of a matching platform for business transfers?
Figure 1: Definition of matching platforms
From these keywords given by business transfer advisors mainly, the description arises that a
matching platform for business transfers are regulated online and offline platforms where
buyers and sellers are matched, providing matching information and services. At several
round tables phrasings like “qualified information”, “a validated process” and “a place to do
real transactions” are mentioned. Note that it is not clear who regulates the platform.
Some of the 15 expert group members, representing the matching platforms, gave very brief
descriptions of matching platforms like “a database of sellers and buyers and a search engine”
and “brokerage of buyers, sellers and advisors”. They differentiated typologies of matching
platform and business models, like type of ownership (private, semi-public, public), markets
(regional, national, cross-border), partnerships, different target groups of SMEs (sector
specific or specialized platform, firm size like micro firms, small firms and medium-sized
firms), the importance of the main stakeholders (bankers, advisors, legal parties, government
agencies, shareholders) and the number of selling profiles available. They also distinguished
between (full) digital services, limited digital services and all types of non-digital services,
like courses, networking activities and/or awareness raising activities on SME business
transfers. The survey questionnaire (see Annex 4) has taken in these business models and
typologies.
Like the business advisors, also the expert group members could not separate the descriptions
of matching services from quality standards. At all tables several expert group members
mentioned terms like “transparent information” and “clear matching methodologies”, “up-to-
dating procedures”, “validated” or “checked” information or propositions, tags of “date of
placement”, “new” or “replaced” and “license to operate” as bottom-line procedures. So the
survey questionnaire also assesses these standards (see Annex 4).
7
2. What do you expect from matching platforms?
Figure 2: Expectations from matching platforms
This very open question on expectations, gives us a similar open set of requirements. The
main expectations of business transfer advisors are that there is a place where all parties come
together, with all kind of available services to provide for transfers between buyers and
sellers.
The 15 expert group members, representing the matching platforms, added on minimum and
maximum of the services being offered. They contrasted “passive” and “active” matching of
buyers and sellers or advisors. Passive matching is without any involvement of the platform,
by easy to use search engines, digital process information and “do it yourself” tips and tricks.
Active matching, both on-line and off-line, involves more digital or non-digital platform
services in profile matching, training, finding or providing support or diagnostic services like
valuation, tax and legal or connecting buyers /sellers to particular network parties. Questions
on the types of services provided have been included in the survey (Annex 4).
3. Will there be differences in what buyers, sellers and advisors wish for?
Figure 3: Differences for buyers, sellers and advisors
8
Though the word cloud does not reveal the connections, the majority of the notes of the 30
advisors, showed that buyers and their advisors want as much as possible quality information.
Sellers on the other hand want full confidentiality first and provide initially very limited
information of their firm to protect both their identity and firm name.
4. According to you, what is important in a matching platform?
Figure 4: Important features of matching platform
Most importantly active profiles, checked and easy accessible, available profiles and
information are mentioned.
5. What should be the minimum quality standard?
Figure 5: Minimum quality standard for matching platform
The answers on this question also show the importance on good information, availability of
advisory services, clear criteria and up to date and a sufficient number of profiles. There is
additional phrasing on criteria, like references, reliable and accurate information and enough
numbers of profiles available. Also words like control, filters, closed and confidentiality refer
to a limited disclosure of seller’s firm information.
As previously mentioned, the expert group members consider “transparent information” and
“clear matching methodologies”, “up-to-date profiles”, “validated” and “checked”
9
information or propositions, tags of “date of placement” or “replacement” and “license to
operate” as bottom-line quality standards. Towards medium and maximum quality standards
they added “automated profiles alerts”, “on-line trading”, “secured data rooms” or “business
performance data”, “fast process”, “success rate of deals”, “connecting with other
platforms/networks”, “life events”, dedicated and qualified “valuation”, “legal” and “tax”
tools, test and/or advisory services.
Conclusions
Most importantly matching platforms are meeting places for all parties concerned in business
transfers. Defining business transfer platforms and their services, our discussants included
quality standards referring to qualified information and a validated process in particular.
There is additional phrasing on active profiles, reliable, accurate and up to date selling
profiles. Online and offline services are both seen as part of the services provided on
matching platforms.
This leads us to the following working definition:
A matching platform on SME business transfers is an open market place for (certain types of)
sellers, buyers and advisors, providing digital and possibly non-digital additional services,
with clear information on their matching methodology, business model and costs, a search
engine for matching, with certain kinds of validations and checks in place towards the listed
profiles on the platform.
Another way of defining matching platforms is to contract them with business brokers
portfolios. Business brokers portfolios are limited to their own contracts. Matching platform
lists profiles of many business brokers and also of sellers and buyers who have not contracted
any business broker.
Three important dimensions are to be noticed of these open markets places:
a) Market type and specialization may vary: platforms may operate regionally, nationally
or trans-nationally but also can be selective on certain types of sellers and buyers, like
the firm size, sector and minimal or maximal selling price.
b) Ownership may vary: private, private-public and public organization may differ in
mission, type of services provided and their main partners/stakeholders.
c) The mixture of on-line and off-line services may vary. Where some platforms work
fully or mainly digital, others provide both digital services and non-digital services.
Buyers and sellers have opposite wishes for disclosure of information on the platform. Buyers
like to have as much quality information as possible. Sellers like to disclose a minimum of
initial information to protect their firm and identity. Trust and confidentiality seem to be of
great importance to match sellers’ profiles.
10
3. Evidence-based standards for digital matching
The study of Van Teeffelen and Weesie (2015) reviews research on digital matching
platforms. The summary of the outcomes are presented here. These outcomes are integrated in
the survey for market-based indicators for quality of matching platforms in Table 6 on page
18 and the questionnaire (see Annex 4). For more details and references, please assess Van
Teeffelen and Weesie (2015).
Trust and privacy issues
Trust is vital for any digital service. Appearances of websites in presentation, but more
importantly the easiness to use and content quality have proven to increase trust. Empirical
outcomes corroborate Sztompka’s (1999) set of criteria to build trust are confirmed:
reputation, performance and appearance. Reputation refers to a record of past deeds and
increases trust strongly. Performance includes present conduct and currently obtained results.
A track record of matching platforms, a seal of approval and third party recognitions, have
shown to enhance online trust dynamically both as part of reputation and obtained results.
Additional services and offline presence by matching platforms, seem to be of importance in
the longer run, since they generate more familiarity of users, word-of- mouth promotion and a
variety of services to be assessed by customers.
Inferences for matching platforms
Show a track record of success for buyers and sellers to increase traffic and trust.
User-friendliness and a content quality also increase trust in e-commerce.
Create a seal of approval or invite independent third party ratings to increase trust and
transactions on matching platforms.
Provide for additional services and offline presence to generate more familiarity, trust
and usage.
Online dating
Sellers finding buyers on the web have characteristics of online dating. The online dating
research indicates that assessing implicit preferences, assesing previous similar transactions,
increase predictions of matching success hugely. A well-organized search procedure and easy
to use search engines are vital to match profiles. Presenting an infinite number of profiles
leads to choice stress and less commitment of buyers and sellers. Fewer initial outcomes
generated for a first assessment increase a better likelihood of first contacts and commitment.
No heuristic so far can predict matching success, because real life interactions are best
predictor in any match. Computer Mediated Contact (CMC) services with mutual consent,
like skype, sms or e-mail contact, overcomes part of the superficiality of matching profiles
and speed up first real life meetings.
Inferences for matching platforms
Introduce procedures to assess implicit preferences.
Introduce smart matching tools showing few rather than a lot of profiles.
Introduce Computer Mediated Communication services on matching platforms.
11
Success of matching platforms
An overview study on the topic is missing. First results indicate that in the first period of
business transfers platforms the quantity of profiles increases transactions, but at a later point
the quality of the portfolio prevails in increasing transactions. Private and public platforms
use other types of guiding principles and governance. Where competition/market share and
price/profits prevails for private platforms, behavior of all stakeholder and reputation prevails
for public platforms. This may complicate cooperation between private and public platforms.
The development of dominant parties in the market does not have to interfere with
collaboration. Two conditions seem to favor collaboration: the less similar the platforms, the
most likely collaboration and the more dominant a platform, being secure of leadership, the
more likely collaboration with rivals. Direct network connections seem to be most profitable
for collaborating parties, leading to more transactions. Technological upgrading of low-tech
platforms is not favorable for them in a highly competetive market.
Inferences for matching platforms
Collaboration with other (dominant or smaller) platforms seem well possible. The less
similar the platforms operate and the more secure dominant platforms are on their
leadership, the more likely collaboration is to be successful. Collaboration between
platforms and even rivals seem to lead to more transactions.
Matching platforms in less developed markets are likely to be more successful in
matching by increasing the number of profiles on their platform first. For matching
platforms in developed markets it seems wiser to develop the quality of the profiles,
rather than the quantity of profiles.
It is possible that cooperation between private and public platforms may be
complicated by different sets of govenance principles. Rather than profit and market
share, public platforms will also assess the behavior of all partners for reason of
reputation and the public good.
12
4. Building a framework to assess digital quality
In order to build a framework for more generic properties of web-based platforms, they need
to be assessed first. We will focus on digital presence primarily. The study of Hasan and
Abuelrup (2011) overviews some 50 previous studies on website qualities and propose four
dimensions: content quality, design quality, organization quality and user-friendliness. Their
dimensions are in line with the earlier findings of Aldawani and Palvia (2002). The proposed
dimensions contain in total 22 main indictors. In looking in more detail to these indicators, we
will also specify or add to indicators from previous studies on business transfers matching
platforms.
Content Quality
A full set of content quality indicators provided by Hasan and Abuelrup (2011) is shown in
Table 1.
Table 1: Indicators for Content Quality
Indicators
Check list
Timely
Up-to date information
How frequently the website is updated
When the website was updated
Relevant
Organization's objectives
Organization's history
Customers (audience)
Products or services
Photography of organization's facilities
Multilanguage/ culture
Use different languages
Present to different cultures
Variety of presentation
Different forms (text, audio, video….)
Accuracy
Precise information (no spelling, grammar errors)
Sources of information identified
Objective
Objective presentation of information
Authority
Organization's physical address
Sponsor (s) of the site
Manager (s) of the site
Specifications of site's managers
Identification of copyright
Email to manager
Timely: This indicator looks at the up-to-datedness and the visible website is updates. Besides
the general platform information, this indicator seems to be very relevant for all profiles
posted on the matching websites from sellers and buyers. How recent are profiles, were they
shown before?
13
Relevant: The extent to which websites’ information is comprehensive, complete and
provides the right level of details. Organisations are expected to provide information on their
objectives. In case of business transfers matching platforms, that could include their business
model. Are they public, quasi-public or private and who is the legal owner or what is the legal
entity and affiliations? Also organizations present their origination and history, define their
customers or audience present their products or services. The customer’s trust can be
enhanced by adding pictures of their facilities.
Multilanguage/Culture: Information is available in different languages, suitable to different
cultures and meets the needs of all customers regardless of their country.
Clearly the authors have a corporate multi-national setting in mind. Depending on width of
the customer base, platforms might consider to make (parts of) their platform accessible to
interested buyers or sellers from abroad.
Variety of presentation: Information is presented in different forms, like text, video, audio.
This indicator is evident, though it might be hard to rate objectively. What would be the ideal
webpage with the optimal text, video and audio ratio?
Accuracy: Information is precise, there is no spelling error or grammar error. More
importantly, what are the sources of information, can they be identified?
The matching procedure should be clear. It is also important for buyers to know if selling
propositions are checked at the minimum level, say the firm owner’s identity, chamber of
commerce registry and previous fraud or bankruptcy (Qutob and Van Teeffelen, 2009).
Additionally the completeness of the information memorandum and valuations could be
checked. Also prizing and costs of services, success fees etcetera, should be transparent.
Another feature of accuracy could be the success ratio of the platform in matching, being well
predefined.
The content quality of an e-vendor’s website, referring to the usefulness, accuracy, and
completeness of the information offered increase customers’ trust in online transactions (Liao,
Palvia and Lin, 2006).
Objective: Information is presented in an objective manner without political, cultural,
religious, or institutional biases.
Also this indicator reveals a corporate international mind-set. Depending on the target group
of customers, the information is expected to be more or less biased, towards certain target
groups. If matching platforms have a business model, including private or public sponsoring,
affiliated services or parties, this should be stated clearly, so visitors are aware of certain
biases.
Authority: The details of the organization, its address, management and sponsors should be
clearly mentioned. Also pictures of employees, management and board and contact info will
add to transparency. This indicator closely resembles the relevance indicator.
14
Design Quality
The set of indicators for design quality provided by Hasan and Abuelrup (2011) is shown in
Table 2. Design and image seem hard to objectivise and score, other than users ratings.
Table 2: Indicators for Design Quality
Indicators
Check list
Attractive
Innovative
Aesthetic effects
Appropriateness
Emotional appeal
Appropriate to the type of website
Image used within it serve functional purposes
Balancing (images, colors, and text)
Color
Number of screens per page
Background color
Image/sound/ video
Text color
Number of image/ sound/ video
Provide alternative text for all non-text elements
Text
Consistency (type, style)
Readability
Relative seize
Capital letters
Breathing pace
Multiple headings
Scrolling text
Sequential appearance of text and images
Organizational Quality
These indicators concern with the grouping, categorization, or structure of websites’ elements.
It helps the user to reach for the required information quickly, navigate easily within the
website and keeps him informed if he is still on the same website. Table 3 provides all
indicators provided by Hasan and Abuelrup (2011) .
Table 3: Indicators for Organization Quality
Indicators
Check list
Index
Index or links to all website's pages
Mapping
Adequate website map or navigation bar/ menu
Current page
Consistency
General layout
Links
Working links
Assistant links (back to home, top, back to original website)
Worthy links (to other related websites, no dead links)
Visiting pages
Logo
Organization's logo is clear and noticeable
15
Index: Is there an index or a link to all the website’s pages from the main page, so that the
user sees all main categories of the website?
Mapping: Is an adequate website map or navigation bar/menu available in each page to
facilitate navigating the website?
Consistency: Is there a general layout of each page consistent through the website?
Links: Do the links work properly, are there assistant links available in each page so that the
user can get back to the main page from every section of the website or to top of the page
within the long pages of the website, and can the user return to the original website when
he/she follows external link of any page?
Are there worthy links that take users to other related websites available and are these links
coloured. Do they change of colour after the user has visited it?
Cross referral to other matching platforms or profiles is seen as a distinct organizational
quality of a website by Hasan and Abuelrup (2011).
Logo: Organization logo is clear and noticeable in every page of the website
User-Friendliness
Table 4 provides all indicators provided by Hasan and Abuelrup (2011).
Table 4: Indicators for User-Friendliness
Indicators
Check list
Usability
Ease to use, understand, operate, find, or navigate
Easy to find using search engines
What's new
Reliability
Appropriate and easy to remember URL
Short download speed
Multi browser support
Work properly using different screen settings
Fewer ads
Measuring efficiency
Availability
Interactive features
Clear instruction
Help function
FAQ
Effective internal search tool
Feedback between user and website (email, chat , online community, suggested
forms)
Review transactions
Tracker order
Security
Secure transactions
Privacy
Customization
Tailoring content to the needs of specific users
16
The user-friendliness indicators help users regardless of education or experience to find the
needed information within a reasonable time and regards interaction between user and website
using different tools. The impact of perceived ease of use on the formation of trust in e-
commerce is supported by several studies (Bart, Shankar, Sultan, & Urban, 2005; Chen, 2006;
Flavian, Guinaliu & Gurrea, 2006; Koufaris & Hampton-Sosa, 2004).
Usability: The website is easy to use, understand, operate, find information, or navigate. It is
easy to find the website using external websites and it is clear to the user that new information
is added to the website. This also means that new profiles are easily found.
Reliability (technical): The content reliability belongs to the content quality indicators and is
not a part of the user-friendliness indicators. Reliability is more about the technical reliability
of the web-platform.
The website’s address is appropriate and easy to remember, short download time, multi
browser support and work properly using different screen settings. Few adds are in the
website’s pages to avoid long time downloading of website’s pages and there is a way to
measure its efficiency by counting the number of visitors. Also, the website is available 7
days/week, 24 h/day.
Interactive features: The website has clear instructions to use different sections. The help
function and clear error messages are available. FAQ is available, it summarizes frequently
asked questions and their answers. There is an effective internal search tool to search the
content of the website. Most importantly there is a communication channel and feedback
between user and website through phone, email, chat rooms, online community or
suggestion /complaint forms.
Also records and sequence of transactions should be available.
The interactive features for matching platforms are very important. It means that buyers and
sellers can easily make, change or find profiles. Qutob and Van Teeffelen (2009) previously
rated matching platforms on their capacity to find profiles on sector, number of employees,
legal entity, sale turnover, price indication, region/city, postal code, date of placement,
keywords and/or profile ID. The more entries possible, the higher the ranking on user-
friendliness.
Also optional extra or additional services should be mentioned. Are there webinars available,
training and support, advisory services, interactive additional support tooling?
Security/Privacy: In order to gain users’ trust, effective mechanisms are used to keep the
secure matching and transactions. Confidentiality needs to be guaranteed, privacy of personal
information needs to be safe and not transmitted without consent to third parties, so that
information cannot be handled or read by unauthorized users.
Customization: The process of tailoring the content of the website according to the needs and
performances of specific users. This also includes the platform’s cookie policy.
17
5. Selection of quality indicators
The quality criteria are the building blocks both of a survey and assessment of matching
platforms in EU countries (see Annex 4). Clearly not all 4 dimensions and all 22 main
indicators provided by Hasan and Abuelrup (2011) are of the same importance for matching
platforms in business transfers. Trust and confidentiality are important for matching platforms
in business transfers (see Chapter 2). As we saw in Chapter 3, reputation - a record of past
deeds - and performance - present conduct and currently obtained results - but also user-
friendliness and content quality contribute to increase trust. These aspects are largely covered
by Hasan and Abuelrup’s (2011) Content Quality Indicators (Relevant, Timely, Accuracy,
Objective and Authority), Organizational Quality Indicators (Index, Mapping, Links) and
User-Friendliness Indicators (Usability, Interactive features, Security/Privacy and
Customization)e. Although Design Quality is also an important aspect of websites, it will be
hard to assess objectively, since it is a matter of taste and assessment may differ widely per
user group. For this reason we exclude them. In comparing website the indicators in Table 5
will be leading.
Table 5: Quality indicators for matching platforms
Indicators
Quality
Optional
Content Quality
Timely
x
Relevant
x
Multilanguage
x
Accuracy
x
Objective
x
Authority
x
Design Quality
Attractiveness
-
Appropriateness
-
Color
-
Image/Video/Sound
-
Text
x
Organizational Quality
Index
x
Mapping
x
Consistency
-
Links
x
Logo
-
User-Friendliness
Usability
x
Technical Reliability
x
Interactive features
x
Security/Privacy
x
Customization
x
18
Out of the original 22 indictors of Hasan and Abuelrup (2011), we suggest to use 12
indicators as core indicators to assess web quality. An optional 3 indicators are standby to
explain poor (technical) accessibility. The optional indicators will only be looked at when
they interfere with assessing the website, like unreadable page, no access to website or
profiles or cross national matching services without the possibility to change the language.
Quality Indicators
The selected indicators though need to be enriched by the findings in the Chapters 2 and 3. In
red the new criteria are added. They originate from the remarks provided by the 30 business
transfer advisors and 15 matching platform representatives and the Evidence-Based Study.
Table 6: Quality indicators and characteristics
Quality Indicators Characteristics
Timely Up to date websi te Date of placement Identifia ble repla cements
Relevant & Authority Number of ava ila ble profiles Clear i ndication of ownershi p His tory
Busi ness model Contac t detail s
Sponsors Listing of s taff members
Multilanguage Accessi ble in other l anguages
Profi les in other langua ges
Accuracy Clear matchi ng procedure Type of checks of sell ers Digi tal servic es
Succes s ratio Type of checks buyers Non-digi tal servic es
Trans action records Type of checks advi sors Pri ces
Seal of approva l Third par ty recogni tion Succes s Fees
Links To other parties To national platforms To internationa l pla tforms
Interactive services Eas y to make profi les Eas y to cha nge profiles Easy to find profi les, by
Communica tion with pl atform User rating and sa tis faction Sector
Phone, e-mail , chat Number employees (fte)
Compla int forms and procedure Check for i mpli cit preferences Sal es turnover
Respons e time Limited search engine outcomes Region/c ity
Pri ce indic ati on
Secured data/deal ing rooms CMC servi ces Date of pla cement
Security/Privacy Clear privacy protection/policy Secured appli cation process Secured da tabases
Index & Mapping Clear index Clear websi te map Eas y to naviga te
Usability & Web-interaction Clear instructions FAQ Help and search functions
Text Easy to unders tand Readable
Links Do internal links work Do external links work
Technical Reliabilty Uptime Short downl oad time Multi br owser s upport
Tablet
Smart phone
Customization Cooki e poli cy Subscri tpion servi ces
19
References
Aladwani, A.M., and Palvia, P. (2002), Developing and Validating an Instrument for
Measuring User-Perceived Web Quality, Information & Management, 39, 467-476.
Akehurst, J., Koprinska, I., Yacef, K., Pizzato, L., Kay, J., & Rej, T. (2012). Explicit and
implicit user preferences in online dating. In: New Frontiers in Applied Data Mining, 15-27,
Springer Berlin.
Bart, Y., Shankar, V., Sultan, F., & Urban, G. L. (2005), Are the drivers and role of online
trust the same for all web sites and consumers? A large-scale exploratory empirical study,
Journal of Marketing, 69, 133–152.
Beldad, A., De Jong, M.and Steehouder, M. (2010), How shall I trust the faceless and the
intangible? A literature review on the antecedents of online trust, Computers in Human
Behavior, 26, 857–869.
Benedicktus, R. (2011), The effects of 3rd party consensus information on service
expectations and online trust, Journal of Business Research, 64, 846–853
Eastlick, M. Lotz, S. and Warrington, P. (2006), Understanding online B-to-C relationships:
An integrated model of privacy concerns, trust, and commitment, Journal of Business
Research, 59, 877–886.
Chen, C. (2006), Identifying significant factors influencing consumer trust in an online travel
site, Information Technology and Tourism, 8, 197–214.
European Commission (2006), Markets for business transfers; Fostering transparent
marketplaces for transfer of business in Europe, Brussels.
European Commission (2013), Evaluation of the implementation of the 2006 Commission
communication on business transfers, Brussels.
EU4BT (2014), Engaging Users for Business Transfer, COSME project proposal.
Flavian, C., Guinaliu, M., & Gurrea, R. (2006), The role played by perceived usability,
satisfaction, and consumer trust on website loyalty, Information & Management,
43, 1–14.
Finkel, E., Eastwick, P., Karney,B., Reis, H. and Sprecher, S. (2012), Online Dating: A
Critical Analysis From the Perspective of Psychological Science, Psychological Science in the
Public Interest, 13(1), 3–66.
20
Hasan, L. and Abuelrup, E. (2011), Assessing the quality of web sites, Applied Computing
and Informatics, 9, 11–29.
Koufaris, M., & Hampton-Sosa, W. (2004), The development of initial trust in an online
company by new customers, Information & Management, 41, 377–397.
Qutob, I. and Van Teeffelen, L. (2009), Web-based databanken voor bedrijfsoverdracht en –
overname: Stand van zaken voorjaar 2009, BOBB/KvK Nederland, Utrecht.
Sztompka, P. (1999), Trust: A sociological theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Van Teeffelen, L. and Weesie, E. (2015), Evidence-based criteria for successful digital
matching: Inferences for SME business transfers, EU4BT, Utrecht.
21
Annex 1: European Commission’s Criteria (2006)
22
Annex 2: Qutob and Van Teeffelen’s Criteria (2009)
Reliabilty
Up-to-date profiles
Checked profiles
Direct contact and complaint procedure on the website
Transparancy of platform ownership
Anonimity garantueed for sellers
User friendliness
Search indicators
Support services
Access to all type of firms
Number of profiles
No threshold for expected sales price
Other criteria
Clear policy or business model
Cooperation with other platforms
Fee structure and pricing
Set of Search Indicators
Number of employees
Sector
Profit or net-margin
Sales turnover
Price indication
Date placement
Postal code
Profile ID
Legal entity
Region
Type of firm
Transaction type
Keywords
www.bedrijvendatabank.nl
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
www.bedrijventekoop.nl
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
www.brookz.nl
●
●
●
●
www.business4sale.nl
●
●
●
●
●
●
www.diligence.nl
●
●
●
●
●
●
www.koopmijnbedrijf.nl
●
●
●
●
●
www.mkbase.nl
●
●
●
www.mkbnext.nl
●
●
●
●
●
●
www.omzetbeurs.nl
●
●
●
www.ondernemingsbeurs.nl
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
www.overnamebedrijven.nl
●
●
●
23
Annex 3: EU4BT Description of matching platforms
Business model: how is the platform financed, what are the charges (staff costs to run it, cost
of the ICT tool, etc.) and revenues (fees from sellers, buyers, advisers and for public platforms
: subsidies, for private platforms : sponsors?) What is needed to reach the budget balance?
ICT tool
o Search criteria
o How to create of profile – who creates the profile
o Information in the profile - Reliability, quality of information in the profile
o Updating of profiles
o User-friendliness of the profiles to be consulted
o Number of profiles on the platform
o Fees for the seller, the buyer, the adviser
o Success fee?
Matching methodology
o How are the seller and the buyer matched? Self? Active matching by a team?
o How about confidentiality? How are sellers and buyers connected to one another?
o What is the success rate (how is it determined)?
Promotion of the platform to sellers & buyers : communication actions to bring them on
the platform
Partnerships (fuelling the platform with profiles)
o Partnership between public platform and private platforms/brokers
o Partnership with local organizations, business associations, ...
Additional services (e-newsletter, on-line tools, advisory services, training, ...) : what are the
additional services proposed by the platform and what is their respective added value to the
quantity/quality of profiles?
International connections (how do they connect with platforms from other countries)
24
Annex 4: Survey Questions for Market-Based Standards
Introduction
This questionnaire is part of the EU4BT-project (www.eu4bt.eu) and is designed to
investigate good practises in digital and non-digital services of matching platforms for SME
business transfers.
With the outcomes EU4BT aims to develop quality standards and good practises related to
buyer-seller platforms, also facilitating (international) cooperation between platforms.
Completion of the questionnaire, mostly multi-choice questions, will take approximately
20 - 30 minutes.
All information you provide will be treated as strictly confidential. All results will be
reported aggregated and anonymized. You will be invited to the seminar that discusses the
preliminary outcomes, being compensated for your traveling expenses (up to 500 euro).
For any questions regarding this survey you can contact Professor Dr. Lex van Teeffelen,
Chair of Finance and Firm Acquisition at HU Business School Utrecht, The Netherlands,
lex.vanteeffelen@hu.nl or +31 6 38762797
What is the name of your platform? ………………........................
What is your name: …………………………………………..
e-mail: ……………………………………………
Skype or mobile number: …………………….
After web visits of your platform and possible interviews, we will separate this data sheet
from our dataset, assuring your and the platforms anonymity in our database.
25
Part 1: General information and services provided
1. In what year has your matching platform been founded? ……..
2. In which year did your platform operate web-based? ……
3. How many people in Full Time Equivalents work at your matching platform: … FTE
4. Has you platform subsidiaries (platforms with similar or different names)?
Yes, we also operate under different names
No
5. Is your platform technology or method also used by other non-owned platforms?
Yes
No
6. How many selling profiles are registered on your platform at this moment? ……..
7. How many buying profiles are registered on your platforms at this moment? …….
8. What type of buyers does your platform attract?
Mainly management buy-in candidates
Mainly other SME owners
Mainly investors/financial buyers/private equity
A mixture of all sorts, no predominant type of buyer
Frankly, we do not know
9. If your platform registers advisors/intermediaries, how many are registered on your
platforms? …………..
10. If buyers contact sellers, what is the average response time for sellers or their
representative? ………… working days
11. Is your platform open for all sellers?
Yes >>>> go to question 13
No, we have a specific target group/segment
12. What is your specialisation or what are the minimum requirements?
…………………………………………….
13. Is there a minimum or maximum price before placement?
Yes, minimum sales price is ……………….
Yes, maximum sales price is ……………….
No
14. Does your platform operate
Mainly for regional deals
Mainly for national deals
Mainly for cross-national deals
26
15. In how many countries does your platform operate? …. Countries
16. Does your matching platform offer different kind of subscriptions?
Yes, my platform provides different types of subscriptions, each with
different types of services.
No, my platform has just one type of fee >>>> go to question 18
17. What kind of premium services does your platform provide?
……………………………………………………..
……………………………………………………..
……………………………………………………..
……………………………………………………..
……………………………………………………..
18. What is the fee structure for buyers, sellers and advisors? ………………………………
19. Which of the following digital interactive services do you provide on your platform?
(more than one answer possible)
Alert services for buyers and sellers
Secured data or dealing rooms
Webinars and course ware
Screenings and supply of additional (financial) information for interested
parties
Direct contact facilities by Skype, Video, Chat or Social Media functions
routed by your platform between buyers and sellers or their advisors
Online contracting tools
Online legal services
Online valuation tools
Online financial services
Online tax tools
Online tax services
Other………………......................................(open space to fill in)
None of these services
20. Does your matching platform provides for non-digital additional services?
No, my platform works fully digitized >>>> go to question 22
Yes, my platform provides also non-digital services but few.
Yes, my platform provides both non-digital and digital services.
Yes, my platform provides mainly non-digital services.
21. What are the additional or non-digital services that your platform provide
(more than one answer possible)?
Writing sales propositions
Writing sales memorandums
Valuation services
Due diligence services
27
Legal services
Tax services
Connecting sellers to selected buyers
Connecting buyers to selected sellers
Connecting sellers and buyers to selected advisors
Courses for buyers and/or sellers
Courses for advisors
Courses for local, regional and/or national agencies
Networking facilities
Financing arrangements
Awareness raising activities
Other .....................................................................................(open space to fill )
22. How mature do you consider the market(s) for SME business transfers in which you
operate?
Mature, many platforms are operating in our segment.
Developing, some other platforms operate in our segment.
Early beginnings, there are no hardly or no platforms operating in our
segment.
28
Part 2: Mission, business model, innovation and security
1. What is your platform’s mission?
.................................................................................................................
2. Is your platform privately of publicly funded?
My platform is 100% privately funded.
My platform is mainly privately funded (at least 51%)
My platform is 50% privately funded, 50% publicly funded
My platform is mainly publicly funded (at least 51%)
My platform is 100% publicly funded.
3. Which stakeholder(s) has/have most influence on your business decisions?
(more than one answer possible)
Wishes of sellers and buyers
Wishes of advisors
Wishes of other private parties, ……………….
Wishes of government (agencies)
Investors in my platform
Sponsors
…………………………...
4. Are your revenues (also if publicly funded) mainly coming from digital or non-digital
services?
Fully or mainly from digital services.
50%/50%
Fully or mainly from non-digital additional services.
Hard to differentiate between digital and non-digital services
5. What business model is used by your platform?
Business model (more answers possible)
Yes
Partly
No
Trade model (% of all the transactions on the platform)
Subscription model (subscription fees)
Advertisement model (web-advertisements)
Meta-data generation (selling data to interested parties)
Advisory model (paid services for sellers and/or buyers)
Broker model (success fee from sellers or buyers)
Freemium model (first free services, then paying services)
Not for Profit model (there is no break-even for our services)
Sponsor model (sponsors pay part of all costs made)
Other …………
29
6. Which parties ensure the most of your revenues (more than one answer possible)?
Sellers of companies ( %)
Advisors/external experts ( %)
Buyers of companies ( %)
Governmental parties or agencies ( %)
Subsidies ( %)
Advertisers ( %)
Sale of (meta)data to third parties ( %)
Others .....................................................( %)
Note: total revenues are 100%
7. For private platforms only
Is your platform making a profit?
My platform is increasing its profits year by year.
My platform has stable profits.
My platform operates break-even
My platform has stable and affordable losses
My platform has increasing losses year by year.
For public or public/private platforms only
Does your platform perform within budget?
My platform is well within budget year by year.
My platform operates break-even
My platform uses more money than budgeted year by year
8. What is the total revenue for matching activities 2014 in euro’s.
1 - 250.000
251.000 - 500.000
500.001 - 1.000.000
1.000.001 - 2.500.000
2.500.001 - 5.000.000
5.000.001 - 10.000.000
10.000.001 or more
9. How much of your total revenues is spent the past three years on innovations?
By innovations we mean entering new markets, new ways of ICT processing or
new services.
Close to 0%
5% - 10%
11% - 15%
16% - 20%
21% or more
10. Are you planning for new innovations in the coming 12 months?
No, we have no plans >>> continue to question 12
Yes, we have plans to innovate our platform, namely …...
Please rank your plans on innovation on importance?
1. ................................................... ………………..............................(open space to fill in)
2. ………………..................................................................................(open space to fill in)
3. ………………..................................................................................(open space to fill in)
30
11. Do you share profiles with other non-owned digital matching platforms?
Yes, we share propositions and information with ……….
Sometimes we share propositions and information with …………..
No, we don’t share propositions with other digital platforms.
12. What are the main obstacles for cooperation?
…………………………………………………………………………..
13. How do you secure your website, applications and database?
Do employees/management change their passwords regularly? Yes No
How often per year? ….. per year
Can employees assess all data(bases)? Yes Partly No
Are data collected in one database? Yes No
Is/are your database(s) secured? Yes Partly No
Are all applications tested on security issues regularly? Yes Partly No
How many times per year ? ………
By whom? ……………….
Are your company servers tested on security issues regularly? Yes Partly No
How many times per year? …………………
By whom? …………………….
If users log in, does your website uses encryption?(https-protocols) Yes No NA
If users change their profiles, do you ask for (extra digital) confirmation? Yes No NA
Are internet users automatically disconnected if they are inactive ` Yes No NA
for 10 minutes or longer on the website?
14. Can users see all of their invoices on the web? Yes No NA
15. Is your full website functionality adjusted to the use of tablets? Yes Partly No
16. Is your full website functionality adjusted to the use of smart phones? Yes Partly No
31
Part 3: Matching, validation and third party recognition
1. Who puts profiles on your matching platform? (more than one answer possible)
Buyers and/or sellers themselves
Advisors or intermediaries
We ourselves after interviews with buyers/sellers
We ourselves after some checks with the advisor
Other, …………………………..
2. Who changes profiles on your matching platform? (more than one answer possible)
Buyers and/or sellers delete their own (firm) profile
Advisors or intermediates delete them on our platform
We change them
Other, …………………………..
3. Who deletes profiles on your matching platform? (more than one answer possible)
Buyers and/or sellers delete their own (firm) profile
Advisors or intermediates delete them on our platform
We delete them after the deal is done
We delete them automatically after the ending of the subscription term
Other, ……………………………
4. Who checks and validates the sellers’ profiles?
Nobody
Advisors or intermediaries
We ourselves after interviews with sellers
Others, ………….
4. Who checks and validates the buyers’ profiles?
Nobody
Advisors or intermediaries
We ourselves after interviews with buyers
Others, ………….
5. Who checks and validates the advisors’ profiles?
Nobody
We ourselves
Others, ………….
We have no profiles of advsiors on the website.
6. Is there a clear statement on your platform what kind of information is checked by whom?
Yes, please add the weblink ……………………………………….
No
7. Do you have a black list of seller, buyers or advisors, not wanting them on your platform?
Yes, we have a black list on ……………………………………….
No >>>>> go to question 9
32
8. Do you share this list with other platforms?
Yes
Sometimes
No
9. What is checked?
` On the part of profiles of sellers
Is there a check on the existence of the firm for sale? Yes Partly No
Is there a check on the identity of the sellers Yes Partly No
Is there a check in the credit/default registers? Yes Partly No
Is there a check on the credentials of sellers? Yes Partly No
Is there a check on the quality of the sales memorandum? Yes Partly No
Is there a check on the valuation of the firm for sale? Yes Partly No
On the part of profiles for buyers
Is there a check on the identity of the buyers? Yes Partly No
Is there a check in the credit/default registers? Yes Partly No
Is there a check on the credentials of buyers? Yes Partly No
Are there are advisor(s) on your platform? Yes No
If no, please skip the following three items
Do you check the identity of the advisor(s)? Yes Partly No
Do you check the credit/default registers? Yes Partly No
Do you check the credentials of advisors? Yes Partly No
10. What type of information is publicly available of firms for sale on the internet?
Sales turnover Yes No
Number of employees Yes No
Sector Yes No
Legal entity Yes No
Region/place Yes No
Sale price indication Yes No
Reason for sale Yes No
11. If profiles are placed, is there a date of placement visible on the website?
Yes
No
12. Does your platform checks for doublings in profiles?
Yes
No, this is not our responsibility
13. If profiles are replaced is it clear this is not a new profile?
Yes, replaced or adjusted profiles are never listed as “new”
No, this is not visible for web-visitors
We never replace propositions
33
14. How does your matching procedures work? (more than one answer possible)
Visitors use the search engine of our platform, then contact buyers or
sellers directly
Visitors use the search engine of our platform, then contacting the listed
advisors
Visitors give us a direct assignment to select buyers and sellers for them
Others, …………………………..
15. If (payed) visitors use your search engine, how many propositions does the engine
generate, assuming looked for profiles are abundantly available?
Max. 5 profiles per session
Max. 10 profiles per session
Max. 30 profiles per session
They get as much as available without any limitation
Visitors can’t see the profiles on the web.
16. Can sellers and buyers contact each other directly via Skype/Video or other
communication via systems on your platform
Yes, direct communication via our platform is possible
No, not yet, but we are working on it
No, not possible
17. Does you platform link to other service providers or info on SME business transfers?
Yes, to ………………………………………………
No
18. Is there user support available by your platform on office hours?
Yes, by phone, email and chat
Yes, by phone and email
Yes, by email and chat
No
19. Is there a complaint procedure available if customers are dissatisfied?
Yes, we have forms available and deal with it within …. days
No, users can contact us
20. Is your website accessible in different languages?
Yes, in the following languages ……
No, only in one language
21. Do you check and publish the success rate of business transfers via your platform?
(success = number of accomplished business transfer transactions)
Yes, regular checks and we publish it
We occasionally check and publish it
We occasionally check but don’t publish
No, we do not check on this
22. How do you track success rate? ………………
34
23. What is (or would be an estimate) of the success rate? … %
24. Is your matching platform yearly assessed by third parties?
Yes, yearly by ………………………
Occasionally but not yearly, by …………………
No
25. Does your platform have “seals of approval” or official recognitions by third parties?
(more than one answer possible)
European recognition by ………….
Government recognition by ………….
Professional association recognition by …………..
Federations of employers/entrepreneurs by ……………
Other platform recognitions by ……………..
User’s satisfaction rates comparing other platforms
User’s testimonials or ratings
Media prizes by ……………………..
Other ….
None of these formal or informal recognitions
26. There is no trusted 3rd party recognition/ accreditation/ certification body in Europe.
Should platforms organize this among themselves?
Yes, definitely, platforms should organize this among themselves
Maybe, but it is not a priority
No, better wait for external parties to decide on this
27. Is there any other information, suggestions or comments you like to share with us?
………………............................................................................(open space to fill in)
