The impact of a firm's make, pseudo-make, or buy strategy on product performance

Abstract The bulk of the product architecture and make-buy choice literature deals with product architecture changes from integral to modular form. This development is often associated with a firm's tendency to change from a make to a buy strategy. However, a few studies investigate the change of product architecture in the reverse direction – from modular to integral form – and the subsequent change in the firm sourcing decision from a buy to a make strategy. These studies hold to the presumption that a firm following a make strategy will outperform firms following a buy strategy in dealing with integral product architectures. Based on the knowledge-based view, we argue for the viability of a sourcing strategy between the pure make and buy strategies – a pseudo-make strategy. We also argue that as product architecture changes from a modular to integral form, firms adopting this pseudo-make strategy are likely to show better product performance than firms following a pure make or buy strategy due to the relative knowledge advantages of the pseudo-make strategy in dealing with the integral product architecture. We examine the impact of the make/pseudo-make/buy strategies on product performance in the U.S. bicycle derailleur and freewheel market from 1980 to 1992 and provide theoretical and managerial implications of our results. Our findings highlight an important distinction between the pseudo-make and make-buy strategies that has not previously been fully appreciated in the extant literature, and as a result increases our understanding of why some firms do not switch strategies from a buy to a make strategy when product architecture changes from modular to integral form as previously expected.

[1]  M. Hannan,et al.  The Population Ecology of Organizations , 1977, American Journal of Sociology.

[2]  George A. Akerlof.  The Market for “Lemons”: Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism , 1970 .

[3]  S. Winter,et al.  The Co-evolution of Capabilities and Transaction Costs: Explaining the Institutional Structure of Production , 2005 .

[4]  B. Kogut,et al.  What Firms Do? Coordination, Identity, and Learning , 1996 .

[5]  G. Hoetker.  How Much You Know versus How Well I Know You: Selecting a Supplier for a Technically Innovative Component , 2005 .

[6]  Timothy J. Sturgeon,et al.  Modular production networks: a new American model of industrial organization , 2002 .

[7]  J. Hausman.  Specification tests in econometrics , 1978 .

[8]  Lee J. Alston,et al.  Resource coordination and transaction costs: A framework for analyzing the firm/market boundary , 1989 .

[9]  Akira Takeishi,et al.  Special Issue: Knowledge, Knowing, and Organizations: Knowledge Partitioning in the Interfirm Division of Labor: The Case of Automotive Product Development , 2002, Organ. Sci..

[10]  David T. Levy.  The Transactions Cost Approach to Vertical Integration: An Empirical Examination , 1985 .

[11]  B. Wernerfelt,et al.  A Resource-Based View of the Firm , 1984 .

[12]  Stefano Brusoni,et al.  The Limits to Specialization: Problem Solving and Coordination in ‘Modular Networks’ , 2005 .

[13]  W. Powell,et al.  Interorganizational Collaboration and the Locus of Innovation: Networks of Learning in Biotechnology. , 1996 .

[14]  S. West,et al.  Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions. , 1994 .

[15]  K. R. Harrigan.  Formulating Vertical Integration Strategies , 1984 .

[16]  J. Barney.  Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage , 1991 .

[17]  G. Pisano.  The R&D Boundaries of the Firm: An Empirical Analysis , 1990 .

[18]  R. Willig,et al.  Economies of scope , 1981 .

[19]  Raghu Garud,et al.  Managing in the modular age : architectures, networks, and organizations , 2002 .

[20]  Peter E. Kennedy.  A Guide to Econometrics , 1979 .

[21]  Jeffrey K. Liker,et al.  Modularity as a Strategy for Supply Chain Coordination: The Case of U.S. Auto , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management.

[22]  B. Hamilton,et al.  Correcting for Endogeneity in Strategic Management Research , 2003 .

[23]  David Lei,et al.  Dynamic Core Competences through Meta-Learning and Strategic Context , 1996 .

[24]  J. H. Dyer.  Effective interim collaboration: how firms minimize transaction costs and maximise transaction value , 1997 .

[25]  S. Fixson,et al.  The Power of Integrality: Linkages between Product Architecture, Innovation, and Industry Structure , 2007 .

[26]  W. P. Barnett,et al.  The Organizational Ecology of a Technological System. , 1990 .

[27]  Carliss Y. Baldwin,et al.  Where do transactions come from? Modularity, transactions, and the boundaries of firms , 2007 .

[28]  R. Gulati.  Does Familiarity Breed Trust? The Implications of Repeated Ties for Contractual Choice in Alliances , 1995 .

[29]  Richard A. D'Aveni,et al.  Economies of Integration Versus Bureaucracy Costs: Does Vertical Integration Improve Performance? , 1994 .

[30]  Allan Afuah,et al.  Dynamic Boundaries of the Firm: Are Firms Better Off Being Vertically Integrated in the Face of a Technological Change? , 2001 .

[31]  Margarethe F. Wiersema,et al.  Matching method to paradigm in strategy research: limitations of cross‐sectional analysis and some methodological alternatives , 1999 .

[32]  K. Pavitt,et al.  Knowledge Specialization, Organizational Coupling, and the Boundaries of the Firm: Why Do Firms Know More than They Make? , 2001 .

[33]  Gregory G. Dess,et al.  Dimensions of Organizational Task Environments. , 1984 .

[34]  Kyle J. Mayer,et al.  Antecedents and Performance Implications of Contracting for Knowledge Workers: Evidence from Information Technology Services , 2005, Organ. Sci..

[35]  Ron Sanchez,et al.  Modularity, flexibility, and knowledge management in product and organization design , 1996 .

[36]  David L. Deeds,et al.  Exploration and Exploitation Alliances in Biotechnology: A System of New Product Development , 2004 .

[37]  S. Kozlowski,et al.  Multilevel Theory, Research, and Methods in Organizations: Foundations, Extensions, and New Directions , 2000 .

[38]  Kim B. Clark,et al.  Design Rules: The Power of Modularity , 2000 .

[39]  Kirk Monteverde.  Technical dialog as an incentive for vertical integration in the semiconductor industry , 1995 .

[40]  M. Leiblein,et al.  Do make or buy decisions matter? The influence of organizational governance on technological performance , 2002 .

[41]  George Westerman,et al.  Disruption, disintegration and the dissipation of differentiability , 2002 .

[42]  Anthony S. Bryk,et al.  Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods , 1992 .

[43]  K. Eisenhardt,et al.  The Art of Continuous Change : Linking Complexity Theory and Time-Paced Evolution in Relentlessly Shifting Organizations , 1997 .

[44]  W. P. Barnett,et al.  Resetting the Clock: The Dynamics of Organizational Change and Failure. , 1990 .

[45]  Kyle J. Mayer,et al.  Capabilities, Contractual Hazards, and Governance: Integrating Resource-Based and Transaction Cost Perspectives , 2006 .

[46]  Stefano Brusoni,et al.  Special Issue: Organizational Design: Making Design Rules: A Multidomain Perspective , 2006, Organ. Sci..

[47]  Z. Griliches,et al.  Econometric Models for Count Data with an Application to the Patents-R&D Relationship , 1984 .

[48]  R. Grant.  Toward a Knowledge-Based Theory of the Firm,” Strategic Management Journal (17), pp. , 1996 .

[49]  Jack A. Nickerson,et al.  A Knowledge-based Theory of the Firm - A Problem-solving Perspective , 2004, Organ. Sci..

[50]  H. Demsetz.  The Theory of the Firm Revisited , 1988 .

[51]  Charles H. Fine.  Clockspeed: Winning Industry Control In The Age Of Temporary Advantage , 1998 .

[52]  Clayton M. Christensen,et al.  Explaining the attacker's advantage: Technological paradigms, organizational dynamics, and the value network , 1995 .

[53]  Steven Klepper,et al.  A Reprise of Size and R & D , 1996 .

[54]  Clayton M. Christensen.  The Innovator's Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail , 2013 .

[55]  Gary J. Miller,et al.  A Social Choice Perspective on Expertise and Authority in Bureaucracy , 1985 .

[56]  D. Leonard-Barton.  CORE CAPABILITIES AND CORE RIGIDITIES: A PARADOX IN MANAGING NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT , 1992 .

[57]  S. Winter,et al.  An evolutionary theory of economic change , 1983 .

[58]  Frank J. Berto.  The Dancing Chain: History and Development of the Derailleur Bicycle , 2000 .

[59]  Tomoatsu Shibata,et al.  Empirical analysis of evolution of product architecture: Fanuc numerical controllers from 1962 to 1997 , 2005 .

[60]  Lloyd A. Jobe,et al.  Balancing vertical integration and strategic outsourcing: effects on product portfolio, product success, and firm performance , 2006 .

[61]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  ABSORPTIVE CAPACITY: A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON LEARNING AND INNOVATION , 1990 .

[62]  Giovanni Dosi,et al.  The Economics Of System Integration: Toward An Evolutionary Interpretation , 2002 .

[63]  Jeffrey T. Macher.  Technological Development and the Boundaries of the Firm: A Knowledge-Based Examination in Semiconductor Manufacturing , 2006, Manag. Sci..

[64]  Kim B. Clark,et al.  Architectural Innovation: The Reconfiguration of Existing Product Technologies and the Failure of , 1990 .

[65]  O. Williamson.  The Economic Institutions of Capitalism: Firms, Markets, Relational Contracting , 1985 .

[66]  J. Heckman.  Sample selection bias as a specification error , 1979 .

[67]  K. R. Conner,et al.  A Resource-Based Theory of the Firm: Knowledge Versus Opportunism , 1996 .

[68]  G. Hoetker.  Do Modular Products Lead to Modular Organizations , 2006 .

[69]  M. Gordon,et al.  PUBLICATION RECORDS AND TENURE DECISIONS IN THE FIELD OF STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT , 1996 .