Vanishing hands? On the link between product and organization architecture

The present article investigates whether modular product architectures deliver better and more differentiated products, given their production in disintegrated and integrated settings. A theoretic model benchmarks the performance of disintegration and integration for different degrees of product modularity by measuring both product quality and differentiation. In line with conventional wisdom, (nearly) modular products befit disintegration insofar as disintegration increases quality. However, disintegration only leads to greater product differentiation than integration if there is substantial entry and exit. These findings--albeit developed with stylised models of disintegration and integration--provide a possible explanation for empirical results showing a decrease in product variety when modular products were produced by independent manufacturers (disintegration). Moreover, the model results predict that industries with limited entry and exit as well as strong winner-take-all dynamics tend to incur a loss in variety if modular products are produced in a disintegrated setting. Copyright 2010 The Author 2010. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Associazione ICC. All rights reserved., Oxford University Press.

[1]  Stuart A. Kauffman,et al.  Optimal search on a technology landscape , 2000 .

[2]  S. Deakin,et al.  No “Third Way” for Economic Organization? Networks and Quasi-Markets in Broadcasting , 2008 .

[3]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  Modularity and Innovation in Complex Systems , 2002, Manag. Sci..

[4]  R. Coase.  The Nature of the Firm , 1937 .

[5]  Kerstin Press.  A life cycle for clusters? : the dynamics of agglomeration, change, and adaption , 2006 .

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

[7]  S. Winter,et al.  An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change.by Richard R. Nelson; Sidney G. Winter , 1987 .

[8]  Luigi Orsenigo,et al.  Technological Revolutions and the Evolution of Industrial Structures: Assessing the Impact of New Technologies upon the Size and Boundaries of Firms , 2008 .

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

[10]  Andrea Prencipe,et al.  The Business of Systems Integration , 2004 .

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

[12]  Richard N. Langlois,et al.  Explaining Vertical Integration: Lessons from the American Automobile Industry , 1989, The Journal of Economic History.

[13]  Richard N. Langlois,et al.  Economic Change and the Boundaries of the Firm , 1989 .

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

[15]  Stuart A. Kauffman,et al.  The origins of order , 1993 .

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

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

[18]  R. Langlois.  Transaction-cost Economics in Real Time , 1992 .

[19]  Jan W. Rivkin,et al.  Speed and Search: Designing Organizations for Turbulence and Complexity , 2005, Organ. Sci..

[20]  Roberto Zoboli,et al.  The Evolution of Industrial Districts Changing Governance, Innovation and Internationalisation of Local Capitalism in Italy , 2004 .

[21]  A. Marshall,et al.  Principles of Economics , 1891 .

[22]  Giovanni Dosi,et al.  The structure of problem-solving knowledge and the structure of organisations , 2000 .

[23]  R. Langlois,et al.  The Secret Life of Mundane Transaction Costs , 2006 .

[24]  Ivana Paniccia,et al.  Industrial Districts: Evolution and Competitiveness in Italian Firms , 2002 .

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

[26]  H. Simon,et al.  Near decomposability and the speed of evolution , 2002 .

[27]  R. Langlois,et al.  Innovation, Networks, and Vertical Integration , 1995 .

[28]  O. Williamson.  Comparative Economic Organization: The Analysis of Discrete Structural Alternatives , 1994 .

[29]  Michael X Cohen,et al.  Harnessing Complexity: Organizational Implications of a Scientific Frontier , 2000 .

[30]  Richard N. Langlois,et al.  External Economies and Economic Progress: The Case of the Microcomputer Industry , 1992, Business History Review.

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

[32]  Richard N. Langlois,et al.  Chandler in a Larger Frame: Markets, Transaction Costs, and Organizational Form in History , 2004, Enterprise & Society.

[33]  Jan W. Rivkin.  Imitation of Complex Strategies , 2000 .

[34]  Koen Frenken,et al.  Interdependencies, Nearly-Decomposability and Adaptation , 1999 .

[35]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  Bridging Contested Terrain: Linking Incentive-Based and Learning Perspectives on Organizational Evolution , 2003 .

[36]  Joseph T. Mahoney,et al.  The choice of organizational form: Vertical financial ownership versus other methods of vertical integration , 1992 .

[37]  Giovanni Dosi,et al.  Division of labor, organizational coordination and market mechanisms in collective problem-solving , 2005 .

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

[39]  Philip E. Auerswald,et al.  The Production Recipes Approach to Modeling Technological Innovation: An Application to Learning by Doing , 1998 .