Firm Partial Modularity and Performance in the Electronic Manufacturing Services Industry

Firms continue to develop new ways to decentralize non-core activities to outside parties. Scholars have approached this issue with modularity theory, suggesting a continuum of arrangements ranging from hierarchy to market. Hierarchy relies on fiat, while partially modular forms, those forms between hierarchy and market, require greater coordination, communication and relationships between firms than do fully modular (or market) forms. While modularity theory identifies this continuum, the associated empirical literature tends to dichotomize modularity: firms are either modular or they are not. Nor does the empirical literature examine the performance outcomes of modular arrangements within this continuum. By examining firms that vary between full integration and partial modularity with a continuous modularity measure, this paper empirically examines the performance outcomes associated with a range of modularity levels. We derive this measure from a peculiar inventory option available within the electronic manufacturing services (EMS) industry. Our data include observations on 260 firms over five years. We find that more firms rely on partially modular arrangements, the lower their performance. We suggest explanations for this result, and areas of future research meant to pursue it.

[1]  D. Cox,et al.  An Analysis of Transformations , 1964 .

[2]  C. Hill Cooperation, Opportunism, and the Invisible Hand: Implications for Transaction Cost Theory , 1990 .

[3]  Robert E. Hoskisson,et al.  Cooperative Versus Competitive Structures in Related and Unrelated Diversified Firms , 1992 .

[4]  Danny Miller,et al.  THE SIMPLICITY OF COMPETITIVE REPERTOIRES: AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS. , 1993 .

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

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

[7]  Nicholas Argyres EVIDENCE ON THE ROLE OF FIRM CAPABILITIES IN VERTICAL INTEGRATION DECISIONS , 1996 .

[8]  B. Uzzi,et al.  Social Structure and Competition in Interfirm Networks: The Paradox of Embeddedness , 1997 .

[9]  Robert E. Kraut,et al.  Coordination and Virtualization: The Role of Electronic Networks and Personal Relationships , 1999, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[10]  武石 彰,et al.  Knowledge partitioning in the inter-firm division of labor : the case of automotive product development , 1999 .

[11]  Kent D. Miller,et al.  Knowledge inventories and managerial myopia , 2000 .

[12]  Kim B. Clark,et al.  The Option Value of Modularity in Design: An Example From Design Rules, Volume 1: The Power of Modularity , 2000 .

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

[14]  Jeffrey M. Wooldridge,et al.  Solutions Manual and Supplementary Materials for Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data , 2003 .

[15]  O. Sorenson,et al.  Technology as a complex adaptive system: evidence from patent data , 2001 .

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

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

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

[19]  Nile W. Hatch,et al.  Design Rules, Volume 1: The Power of Modularity , 2001 .

[20]  THE EFFECT OF PRODUCT MODULARITY ON INDUSTRY STRUCTURE: THE CASE OF THE WORLD BICYCLE INDUSTRY , 2002 .

[21]  D. Teece,et al.  Organizing for innovation: When is virtual virtuous? , 2002 .

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

[23]  Melissa A. Schilling,et al.  Disentangling the Theories of Firm Boundaries: A Path Model and Empirical Test , 2002, Organ. Sci..

[24]  Jeffrey M. Woodbridge Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data , 2002 .

[25]  P. Cardona,et al.  Modularity, strategic flexibility, and firm performance: A study of the home appliance industry , 2002 .

[26]  Erwin Danneels Tight–loose coupling with customers: the enactment of customer orientation , 2003 .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[34]  S. Karim Modularity in Organizational Structure: The Reconfiguration of Internally Developed and Acquired Business Units , 2006 .

[35]  Arvin Sahaym,et al.  The Influence of Information Technology on the Use of Loosely Coupled Organizational Forms: An Industry-Level Analysis , 2007, Organ. Sci..

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

[37]  R. Coff,et al.  Both Market and Hierarchy: An Incentive-System Theory of Hybrid Governance Forms , 2009 .