Networks of innovation and modularity: a dynamic perspective

The aim of this paper is to provide a comprehensive perspective for understanding the dynamics of modularity and the implications of those dynamics for innovation networks. The main contention of this paper is that the dynamics of technology development should reflect the dynamics of a firm network. During the early development of a technology, when the interactions among component types are unclear (in a state of flux) and, therefore, difficult to codify and freeze, organisations build connections with research centres and universities to explore alternative technological solutions. Once such interactions are better understood, codified, modularised and shared, then more exploitative networks (e.g., with suppliers and customers) may be better suited to exploit the current technology. In the transition from the early development phase to the more mature phase, firms must build ties to startups and new entrants, because these firms experiment with alternative design configurations that exploit the underlying technology. In addition, during this transition stage, firms must connect to third-party firms, since the supporting investments made by these firms may determine which of the alternative configurations will become 'the standard'. During this stage, the relationships across firms are defined and governed by modular interfaces that are, in turn, dictated by product interfaces.

[1]  William J. Abernathy,et al.  Patterns of Industrial Innovation , 1978 .

[2]  D. Mowery,et al.  Technological overlap and interfirm cooperation: implications for the resource-based view of the firm , 1998 .

[3]  Curba Morris Lampert,et al.  Entrepreneurship in the large corporation: a longitudinal study of how established firms create breakthrough inventions , 2001 .

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

[5]  A. Grandori,et al.  A Combinatorial Model of Organizational Innovation: The Case of Pilkington Plc , 2004 .

[6]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning , 2007 .

[7]  S. Lenway Cooperative Strategies in International BusinessCooperative Strategies in International Business, by ContractorFarok J. and LorangePeter. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1988, 544 pp., $65.00, cloth. , 1989 .

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

[9]  Marco Iansiti,et al.  Technology Integration: Making Critical Choices in a Dynamic World , 1997 .

[10]  John W. Clarr Cooperative Strategies in International Business , 1990 .

[11]  Henry Chesbrough,et al.  Towards a Dynamics of Modularity , 2003 .

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

[13]  Steven B. Andrews,et al.  Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition , 1995, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[14]  Julie M. Hite,et al.  The evolution of firm networks: from emergence to early growth of the firm , 2001 .

[15]  C. Ménard ORGANIZATIONS AS COORDINATING DEVICES , 1994 .

[16]  H. Chesbrough,et al.  The Role of the Business Model in Capturing Value from Innovation: Evidence from Xerox Corporation's Technology Spin-Off Companies , 2002 .

[17]  Amalya L. Oliver Strategic Alliances and the Learning Life-Cycle of Biotechnology Firms , 2001 .

[18]  C. Freeman Networks of innovators: A synthesis of research issues , 1991 .

[19]  S. Lenway,et al.  Cooperative Strategies in International Business , 1988 .

[20]  D. Krackhardt The strength of strong ties: The importance of Philos in organizations , 2003 .

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

[22]  B. Kogut The network as knowledge : Generative rules and the emergence of structure , 2000 .

[23]  Marco Iansiti,et al.  Intellectual Property, Architecture, and the Management of Technological Transitions: Evidence from Microsoft Corporation , 2009 .

[24]  I. Cockburn,et al.  Scale, scope, and spillovers: the determinants of research productivity in drug discovery. , 1996, The Rand journal of economics.

[25]  G. Stigler The Division of Labor is Limited by the Extent of the Market , 1951, Journal of Political Economy.

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

[27]  A. Lewin,et al.  The Co-Evolution of Strategic Alliances , 1998 .

[28]  Mark Granovetter,et al.  Alliance Capitalism: The Social Organization of Japanese Business. , 1994, The Journal of Asian Studies.

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

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

[31]  A. P. Man,et al.  Transitory Alliances: An Instrument for Surviving Turbulent Industries? , 2003 .

[32]  G. Masiero,et al.  Alliance capitalism: the social organization of japanese business , 1995 .

[33]  R. Gulati,et al.  Where Do Interorganizational Networks Come From?1 , 1999, American Journal of Sociology.

[34]  Allan Afuah How much do your co-opetitors' capabilities matter in the face of technological change? , 2000 .

[35]  John Seely Brown,et al.  Book Reviews : The Social Life of Information By John Seely Brown and Paul Duguid. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2000. 320 pages , 2000 .

[36]  Peter Lorange,et al.  Cooperative strategies in international business : joint ventures and technology partnerships between firms , 2002 .

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

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

[39]  William J. Abernathy,et al.  Patterns of Industrial Innovation : Technology Review , 1988 .

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

[41]  J. Hagedoorn,et al.  Learning in Dynamic Inter-Firm Networks: The Efficacy of Multiple Contacts , 2002 .

[42]  Dean M. Behrens,et al.  Redundant governance structures: an analysis of structural and relational embeddedness in the steel and semiconductor industries , 2000 .

[43]  Mark S. Granovetter The Strength of Weak Ties , 1973, American Journal of Sociology.