Strong ties despite decentralized network design: An automotive case

In the automotive industry alternative powertrains cause a wide spread of knowledge and a growing importance of varied disciplines. Consequently, research unveils a disruption of established relations and an emergence of new kinds of decentralized developments encouraging our research. This paper introduces a networked development project which has attracted considerable attention in science and practice as it has realized the homologation of an electric vehicle within less than three years of development applying an uncommon network approach. In this project a decentralized consortial network has been implemented to accomplish the development of certain modules. We argue that despite a modular architecture these modules are still highly interdependent and thus corresponding technical interfaces need to be managed and implemented in the organizational structures. A relatively new facet of hypothesis-based research on these dependencies is the mirroring hypothesis which states that technical ties have to correspond to the communicational ones. Accordingly, we combine and enhance measurements from different fields and thereby provide a solid approach to assess the strength of technical and organizational ties. The corresponding strength values are captured in matrices enabling the test of the mirroring hypothesis. While there are qualitative findings on the performance implications of mirroring in literature, we present a quantitative approach which should provide a stronger empirical underpinning for the qualitative research in this field.

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

[2]  M. Bensaou,et al.  Buyer-Supplier Relations in Industrial Markets: When Do Buyers Risk Making Idiosyncratic Investments? , 1999 .

[3]  Joanne E. Oxley,et al.  The Scope and Governance of International R&D Alliances , 2003 .

[4]  Kathryn Graziano The innovator's dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail , 1998 .

[5]  Achim Kampker,et al.  Promoting Innovation by Disruptive Networks : Learning from the High-Tech Industry? , 2013 .

[6]  Joel A. C. Baum,et al.  Don't go it alone: alliance network composition and startups' performance in Canadian biotechnology , 2000 .

[7]  D. Leonard-Barton,et al.  Wellsprings of Knowledge: Building and Sustaining the Sources of Innovation , 1995 .

[8]  Garnet Kasperk,et al.  Radikale Innovation durch effiziente Netzwerke , 2014 .

[9]  Morten T. Hansen,et al.  The Search-Transfer Problem: The Role of Weak Ties in Sharing Knowledge across Organization Subunits , 1999 .

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

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

[12]  P. Lawrence,et al.  Differentiation and Integration in Complex Organizations , 1967 .

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

[14]  Christopher Alexander Notes on the Synthesis of Form , 1964 .

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

[16]  Steven D. Eppinger,et al.  A Network Approach to Define Modularity of Components in Complex Products , 2007 .

[17]  Achim Kampker,et al.  Networked product and production development for lithium-ion batteries , 2012 .

[18]  L. Freeman Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification , 1978 .

[19]  Jan van den Ende,et al.  Subjective Performance Assessment of Innovation Projects , 2010 .

[20]  J. Henkel Selective revealing in open innovation processes: the case of embedded Linux (gekürzte Version) , 2006 .

[21]  Christopher Lettl,et al.  Revealing dynamics and consequences of fit and misfit between formal and informal networks in multi-institutional product development collaborations , 2008 .

[22]  D. L. Parnas,et al.  On the criteria to be used in decomposing systems into modules , 1972, Software Pioneers.

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

[24]  Johannes van Biesebroeck,et al.  Value chains, networks and clusters: reframing the global automotive industry , 2008 .

[25]  Achim Kampker,et al.  Strategic Fit Assessment for Value-Added Networks of Electric Engine Production , 2013 .

[26]  D. V. Steward,et al.  The design structure system: A method for managing the design of complex systems , 1981, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management.

[27]  H. Feucht,et al.  Technology as a system: industrial and technological systems , 1997, Innovation in Technology Management. The Key to Global Leadership. PICMET '97.

[28]  M. E. Conway HOW DO COMMITTEES INVENT , 1967 .

[29]  C. Fombrun,et al.  Social Network Analysis For Organizations , 1979 .

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

[31]  M. Hoegl,et al.  Teamwork Quality and the Success of Innovative Projects , 2001 .

[32]  David Krackhardt,et al.  PREDICTING WITH NETWORKS: NONPARAMETRIC MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF DYADIC DATA * , 1988 .

[33]  Judy E. Scott Facilitating Interorganizational Learning with Information Technology , 2000, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..