Component complementarity and transaction costs: the evolution of product design

The issue of whether firms design and develop products with modular product architectures that benefit from the efficiencies of using the market, or integrated product architectures that allow for leveraging firm capabilities is a central question within the product architecture literature. Empirical results show that product modularisation increases over time across a range of industries. However, evidence of increasing (re)integration at the product and industry level has also been hinted at in a limited set of studies. The fact that product architectures potentially oscillate between the modular and integrated designs, as well as often adopting a hybrid form, highlights the need for an integrated explanation concerning how and why this evolution occurs. On this basis we use draw upon the notions of synergistic specificity and product component complementarity. By considering the trade-offs between different types of value capture that are possible in modular and integrated architectures, we are able to build a basic explanation for the evolution of product architectures and their governance choices over the long-run. The proposed typology and discussion helps to synthesise existing evidence and provides the foundation for further empirical research.

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

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

[3]  Joel West,et al.  The Economic Realities of Open Standards: Black, White and Many Shades of Gray , 2005 .

[4]  Charles H. Fine CLOCKSPEED‐BASED STRATEGIES FOR SUPPLY CHAIN DESIGN1 , 2009 .

[5]  R. Garud,et al.  Technological and Organizational Designs for Realizing Economies of Substitution , 1997 .

[6]  Henry Chesbrough,et al.  Networks of innovation and modularity: a dynamic perspective , 2008, Int. J. Technol. Manag..

[7]  Charles H. Fine,et al.  Modeling tradeoffs in three-dimensional concurrent engineering: a goal programming approach , 2005 .

[8]  D. Teece Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy , 1993 .

[9]  Ron Sanchez,et al.  Competing—and Learning—in Modular Markets , 2001 .

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

[11]  R. Langlois,et al.  Networks and innovation in a modular system: Lessons from the microcomputer and stereo component industries , 1992 .

[12]  Peter Galvin,et al.  A case study of knowledge protection and diffusion for innovation: managing knowledge in the mobile telephone industry , 2008, Int. J. Technol. Manag..

[13]  Todd R. Zenger,et al.  Capabilities, Transaction Costs, and Firm Boundaries , 2012, Organ. Sci..

[14]  Joel West,et al.  How open is open enough?: Melding proprietary and open source platform strategies , 2003 .

[15]  M. Jacobides,et al.  The Dynamic Limits of Specialization: Vertical Integration Reconsidered , 2005 .

[16]  Carliss Y. Baldwin,et al.  The Mirroring Hypothesis: Theory, Evidence and Exceptions , 2016 .

[17]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  The Dual Role of Modularity: Innovation and Imitation , 2008, Manag. Sci..

[18]  Ron Sanchez,et al.  Modularity and economic organization: concepts, theory, observations, and predictions , 2013 .

[19]  John Paul MacDuffie,et al.  Modularity‐as‐Property, Modularization‐as‐Process, and ‘Modularity'‐as‐Frame: Lessons from Product Architecture Initiatives in the Global Automotive Industry , 2013 .

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

[21]  James M. Utterback,et al.  Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation: How Companies Can Seize Opportunities in the Face of Technological Change , 1994 .

[22]  Carliss Y. Baldwin,et al.  The Architecture of Platforms: A Unified View , 2008 .

[23]  Kevin J. Boudreau,et al.  Open Platform Strategies and Innovation: Granting Access vs. Devolving Control , 2010, Manag. Sci..

[24]  Lyra J. Colfer The Mirroring Hypothesis: Theory and Evidence on the Correspondence between the Structure of Products and Organizations , 2007 .

[25]  A. Zubac Capitalism as discourse: How can strategic management scholars contribute new insights and refocus debate? , 2017, Journal of Management & Organization.

[26]  Karl T. Ulrich,et al.  The role of product architecture in the manufacturing firm , 2011 .

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

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

[29]  Mustafa Uzumeri,et al.  Managing Product Families , 1996 .

[30]  HERBERT A. SIMON,et al.  The Architecture of Complexity , 1991 .

[31]  W. Dugger The Economic Institutions of Capitalism , 1987 .

[32]  Melissa A. Schilling,et al.  The Use of Modular Organizational Forms: An Industry-Level Analysis , 2001 .

[33]  Nicholas Burton,et al.  When do product architectures mirror organisational architectures? The combined role of product complexity and the rate of technological change , 2018, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag..

[34]  R. Langlois Modularity in technology and organization , 2002 .

[35]  Juliana H. Mikkola,et al.  Capturing the Degree of Modularity Embedded in Product Architectures , 2006 .

[36]  Arnaldo Camuffo,et al.  When the mirror gets misted up: Modularity and technological change , 2014 .

[37]  楠木 建,et al.  The modularity trap : innovation, technology phase-shifts, and resulting limits of virtual organizations , 1999 .

[38]  W. Czakon,et al.  Organizational innovativeness and coopetition: a study of video game developers , 2018 .

[39]  Melissa A. Schilling Winning the standards race:: Building installed base and the availability of complementary goods , 1999 .

[40]  Eric von Hippel,et al.  Task Partitioning: An Innovation Process Variable , 2015 .

[41]  S. Hüsig,et al.  When and how often to externally commercialize technologies? a critical review of outbound open innovation , 2019 .

[42]  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..

[43]  M. Jacobides Industry Change Through Vertical Dis-Integration: How and Why Markets Emerged in Mortgage Banking , 2004 .

[44]  Richard N. Langlois,et al.  Firms, Markets and Economic Change: A dynamic Theory of Business Institutions , 1995 .

[45]  Melissa A. Schilling Toward a General Modular Systems Theory and Its Application to Interfirm Product Modularity , 2000 .

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

[47]  O. Williamson,et al.  Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications. , 1977 .

[48]  M. Jacobides,et al.  Benefiting from Innovation: Value Creation, Value Appropriation and the Role of Industry Architectures , 2006 .

[49]  C. Stubbart MANAGERIAL COGNITION: A MISSING LINK IN STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT RESEARCH , 1989 .

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

[51]  Peter Galvin,et al.  Product modularity, information structures and the diffusion of innovation , 1999 .

[52]  Jeffrey L. Funk,et al.  Systems, components and modular design: the case of the US semiconductor industry , 2008, Int. J. Technol. Manag..

[53]  Juliana Hsuan Mikkola,et al.  Managing modularity of product architectures: toward an integrated theory , 2003, IEEE Trans. Engineering Management.

[54]  Nicholas Argyres,et al.  Innovation, Modularity, and Vertical Deintegration: Evidence from the Early U.S. Auto Industry , 2010, Organ. Sci..

[55]  Peter Galvin,et al.  MODULARITY ON INDUSTRY STRUCTURE: THE CASE OF THE WORLD THE EFFECT OF PRODUCT BICYCLE INDUSTRY , 2001 .

[56]  Ron Sanchez,et al.  Modularity in the mediation of market and technology change , 2008, Int. J. Technol. Manag..

[57]  Kim B. Clark,et al.  The Interaction of Design Hierarchies and market Concepts in Technological Evolution : Research Policy , 1985 .

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

[59]  David Gann,et al.  Architectural Leverage: Putting Platforms in Context , 2014 .