Product architecture, inter-firm vertical coordination and knowledge partitioning in the auto industry

Abstract This study investigates the dynamics of knowledge partitioning, integration and coordination in vertical inter-firm relationships by addressing the following research questions: How and to what extent does product architecture shape the allocation of design tasks and inter-firm coordination? What variables do firms have to consider in making decisions concerning the organization of co-design projects? Following a ‘quasi-experimental’ research design approach, we conducted a comparative study of two similar auto component co-development projects (air-conditioning systems) carried out by a Japanese first-tier supplier with two European automakers. Despite the coeteris paribus conditions defined by the research design, we observed significant cross-firm differences in task and knowledge partitioning and in the relationship governance. The study shows that firm-specific factors (e.g. pre-existing technological and organizational capabilities) - not product architecture per se - resulted the key determinants of cross-firm differences. From this perspective our findings contributes to the broader debate about the co-determination of product architectures, firms' vertical scope and industry architecture.

[1]  Sarah Kaplan Framing Contests: Strategy Making Under Uncertainty , 2008, Organ. Sci..

[2]  Michael G. Jacobides,et al.  How Capability Differences, Transaction Costs, and Learning Curves Interact to Shape Vertical Scope , 2008, Organ. Sci..

[3]  F. Veloso,et al.  Interfirm Innovation under Uncertainty: Empirical Evidence for Strategic Knowledge Partitioning* , 2008 .

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

[5]  Elaine Romanelli,et al.  Inertia, environments and strategic choice: a quasi-experimental design for comparative-longitudinal research , 1986 .

[6]  Vincent Frigant,et al.  Technological Determinism and Modularity: Lessons from a Comparison between Aircraft and Auto Industries in Europe , 2005 .

[7]  Carliss Y. Baldwin,et al.  Managing in an age of modularity. , 1997, Harvard business review.

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

[9]  Will Mitchell,et al.  Complementarity, capabilities, and the boundaries of the firm: the impact of within‐firm and interfirm expertise on concurrent sourcing of complementary components , 2009 .

[10]  R. Gilson,et al.  Contracting for Innovation: Vertical Disintegration and Interfirm Collaboration , 2008 .

[11]  Frits K. Pil,et al.  Modularity: Implications for Imitation, Innovation, and Sustained Advantage , 2006 .

[12]  Juliana Hsuan Mikkola,et al.  Modularity, component outsourcing, and inter‐firm learning , 2003 .

[13]  Jeffrey K. Liker,et al.  Modularisation and outsourcing: who drives whom? A study of generational sequences in the US automotive cockpit industry , 2005 .

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

[15]  A. Gawer,et al.  Industry architecture as a determinant of successful platform strategies: a case study of the i‐mode mobile Internet service , 2009 .

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

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

[18]  A. Tiwana Does technological modularity substitute for control? A study of alliance performance in software outsourcing , 2008 .

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

[20]  Anne Parmigiani,et al.  Why Do Firms Both Make and Buy? An Investigation of Concurrent Sourcing , 2007 .

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

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

[23]  Nicholas Argyres,et al.  Does Transaction Misalignment Matter for Firm Survival at All Stages of the Industry Life Cycle? , 2007, Manag. Sci..

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

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

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

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

[28]  Steven A. Melnyk,et al.  The scientific theory‐building process: a primer using the case of TQM , 1998 .

[29]  Kyle J. Mayer,et al.  Learning to Contract: Evidence from the Personal Computer Industry , 2004, Organ. Sci..

[30]  Stephan Billinger,et al.  Special Issue: Organizational Design: Designing the Boundaries of the Firm: From "Make, Buy, or Ally" to the Dynamic Benefits of Vertical Architecture , 2006, Organ. Sci..

[31]  R. Langlois The Vanishing Hand: The Changing Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism , 2001 .

[32]  Jack R. Meredith,et al.  Building operations management theory through case and field research , 1998 .

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

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

[35]  Maryam Nasiriyar,et al.  Knowledge integration and vertical specialization in the semiconductor industry , 2009 .

[36]  C. Wolter,et al.  The Effects of Innovation on Vertical Structure: Perspectives on Transaction Costs and Competences , 2008 .

[37]  Fabrizio Salvador,et al.  Toward a Product System Modularity Construct: Literature Review and Reconceptualization , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management.

[38]  Steven D. Eppinger,et al.  Identifying Modular and Integrative Systems and Their Impact on Design Team Interactions , 2003 .

[39]  Charles F. Sabel,et al.  Neither Modularity nor Relational Contracting: Inter-Firm Collaboration in the New Economy , 2004, Enterprise & Society.

[40]  R. Garud,et al.  Changing competitive dynamics in network industries: An exploration of sun microsystems' open systems strategy , 1993 .

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

[42]  Dieter Ernst,et al.  Limits to Modularity: Reflections on Recent Developments in Chip Design , 2005 .

[43]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  Temporarily Divide to Conquer: Centralized, Decentralized, and Reintegrated Organizational Approaches to Exploration and Adaptation , 2003 .

[44]  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.

[45]  Raghu Garud,et al.  CHARGING COMPETITIVE DYNAMICS IN NETWORK INDUSTRIES: AN EXPLORATION OF SUM MICROSYSTEMS' OPEN , 1993 .

[46]  Fabrizio Ferraro,et al.  Building architectural advantage in the US motion picture industry: Lew Wasserman and the Music Corporation of America , 2009 .

[47]  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..

[48]  A. Gawer,et al.  How Companies Become Platform Leaders , 2008 .

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

[50]  Christopher L. Tucci,et al.  Interfirm Modularity and Its Implications for Product Development , 2005 .

[51]  Steven D. Eppinger,et al.  The Misalignment of Product Architecture and Organizational Structure in Complex Product Development , 2004, Manag. Sci..

[52]  S. Brusoni,et al.  Unpacking the Black Box of Modularity: Technologies, Products and Organizations , 2001 .

[53]  Christina L. Ahmadjian,et al.  Organizational Learning and Purchase-Supply Relations in Japan: Hitachi, Matsushita, and Toyota Compared , 1998 .

[54]  Charles F. Sabel,et al.  Pragmatic Collaborations: Advancing Knowledge While Controlling Opportunism , 2000 .

[55]  TakeishiAkira Knowledge Partitioning in the Interfirm Division of Labor , 2002 .

[56]  Jeffrey K. Liker,et al.  Evolving Models of Supplier Involvement in Design: The Deterioration of the Japanese Model in U.S. Auto , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management.

[57]  K. Eisenhardt Building theories from case study research , 1989, STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI.

[58]  Anand Swaminathan,et al.  Modularity and the Impact of Buyer - Supplier Relationships on the Survival of Suppliers , 2007, Manag. Sci..