IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v45y2016i7p1436-1448.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do design rules facilitate or complicate architectural innovation in innovation alliance networks?

Author

Listed:
  • Hofman, Erwin
  • Halman, Johannes I.M.
  • Looy, Bart van

Abstract

Architectural innovation is fundamental to the renewal of technological systems. However, it can be a real challenge to organize architectural innovation, all the more so when success hinges upon close collaboration with other firms that are responsible for different subsystems of the end product. This study examines the impact of product design rules and the degree of organizational coupling among innovation network partners on the performance of architectural innovation projects. Using data from 270 collaborative innovation networks in the United States, we found an inversely U-shaped relationship between the presence of design rules and architectural innovation performance. When a certain turning point is reached, dominant design rules have a pronounced net negative impact on the performance of collaborative architectural innovation projects. At the same time, our findings reveal that lead firms can alleviate this negative effect of strong design rules by selecting loosely coupled innovation partners. Accordingly, our findings suggest that the presence of design rules and the extent of partner coupling should be considered jointly when optimizing network configurations that focus on architectural innovation.

Suggested Citation

  • Hofman, Erwin & Halman, Johannes I.M. & Looy, Bart van, 2016. "Do design rules facilitate or complicate architectural innovation in innovation alliance networks?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(7), pages 1436-1448.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:45:y:2016:i:7:p:1436-1448
    DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2016.04.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733316300476
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.respol.2016.04.001?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David J. TEECE, 2008. "Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: The Transfer And Licensing Of Know-How And Intellectual Property Understanding the Multinational Enterprise in the Modern World, chapter 5, pages 67-87, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    2. Narayanan Jayaraman & Ajay Khorana & Edward Nelling & Jeffrey Covin, 2000. "CEO founder status and firm financial performance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(12), pages 1215-1224, December.
    3. Hubert Gatignon & Michael L. Tushman & Wendy Smith & Philip Anderson, 2002. "A Structural Approach to Assessing Innovation: Construct Development of Innovation Locus, Type, and Characteristics," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(9), pages 1103-1122, September.
    4. Richard N. Langlois, 2002. "Modularity in Technology and Organization," Chapters, in: Nicolai J. Foss & Peter G. Klein (ed.), Entrepreneurship and the Firm, chapter 2, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. Bill McEvily & Akbar Zaheer, 1999. "Bridging ties: a source of firm heterogeneity in competitive capabilities," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(12), pages 1133-1156, December.
    6. Stefano Brusoni & Andrea Prencipe, 2006. "Making Design Rules: A Multidomain Perspective," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(2), pages 179-189, April.
    7. Wendy K. Smith & Michael L. Tushman, 2005. "Managing Strategic Contradictions: A Top Management Model for Managing Innovation Streams," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(5), pages 522-536, October.
    8. Eric von Hippel, 1994. ""Sticky Information" and the Locus of Problem Solving: Implications for Innovation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(4), pages 429-439, April.
    9. Ron Adner & Rahul Kapoor, 2010. "Value creation in innovation ecosystems: how the structure of technological interdependence affects firm performance in new technology generations," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(3), pages 306-333, March.
    10. Evans, Martin G., 1985. "A Monte Carlo study of the effects of correlated method variance in moderated multiple regression analysis," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 305-323, December.
    11. Manuel E. Sosa & Steven D. Eppinger & Craig M. Rowles, 2004. "The Misalignment of Product Architecture and Organizational Structure in Complex Product Development," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(12), pages 1674-1689, December.
    12. Deborah Dougherty & Trudy Heller, 1994. "The Illegitimacy of Successful Product Innovation in Established Firms," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(2), pages 200-218, May.
    13. Nicholas S. Argyres, 1999. "The Impact of Information Technology on Coordination: Evidence from the B-2 “Stealth” Bomber," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 10(2), pages 162-180, April.
    14. Nooteboom, Bart, 1999. "Innovation and inter-firm linkages: new implications for policy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(8), pages 793-805, November.
    15. Gino Cattani & Simone Ferriani, 2008. "A Core/Periphery Perspective on Individual Creative Performance: Social Networks and Cinematic Achievements in the Hollywood Film Industry," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(6), pages 824-844, December.
    16. Amrit Tiwana, 2008. "Does technological modularity substitute for control? A study of alliance performance in software outsourcing," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(7), pages 769-780, July.
    17. Carliss Y. Baldwin & Kim B. Clark, 2000. "Design Rules, Volume 1: The Power of Modularity," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262024667, April.
    18. Kogut, Bruce, 1989. "The Stability of Joint Ventures: Reciprocity and Competitive Rivalry," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(2), pages 183-198, December.
    19. Uriel Stettner & Dovev Lavie, 2014. "Ambidexterity under scrutiny: Exploration and exploitation via internal organization, alliances, and acquisitions," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(13), pages 1903-1929, December.
    20. Prashant Kale & Harbir Singh & Howard Perlmutter, 2000. "Learning and protection of proprietary assets in strategic alliances: building relational capital," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(3), pages 217-237, March.
    21. Fixson, Sebastian K. & Park, Jin-Kyu, 2008. "The power of integrality: Linkages between product architecture, innovation, and industry structure," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 1296-1316, September.
    22. Corey C. Phelps, 2010. "A longitudinal study of the influence of alliance network structure and composition on firm exploratory innovation," Post-Print hal-00528392, HAL.
    23. Gang Zhang & Ruoyang Gao, 2010. "Modularity and incremental innovation: the roles of design rules and organizational communication," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 16(2), pages 171-200, June.
    24. Matthew J. Robson & Constantine S. Katsikeas & Daniel C. Bello, 2008. "Drivers and Performance Outcomes of Trust in International Strategic Alliances: The Role of Organizational Complexity," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(4), pages 647-665, August.
    25. Anna Cabigiosu & Arnaldo Camuffo, 2012. "Beyond the “Mirroring” Hypothesis: Product Modularity and Interorganizational Relations in the Air Conditioning Industry," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(3), pages 686-703, June.
    26. Howell, Jane M. & Shea, Christine M. & Higgins, Christopher A., 2005. "Champions of product innovations: defining, developing, and validating a measure of champion behavior," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 20(5), pages 641-661, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Svetlana Klessova & Sebastian Engell & Catherine Thomas, 2022. "Dynamics of couplings and their implications in inter-organizational multi-actor research and innovation projects," Post-Print hal-03690108, HAL.
    2. Hasan A. M. Hamdan & Luitzen de Boer & Daniela Baer, 2021. "When Green Procurement Meets Complexity: The Case of Sustainable Neighborhood Projects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-20, February.
    3. Paulin Gohoungodji & Nabil Amara, 2023. "Art of innovating in the arts: definitions, determinants, and mode of innovation in creative industries, a systematic review," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 17(8), pages 2685-2725, November.
    4. Habib, Tufail & Kristiansen, Jimmi Normann & Rana, Mohammad Bakhtiar & Ritala, Paavo, 2020. "Revisiting the role of modular innovation in technological radicalness and architectural change of products: The case of Tesla X and Roomba," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    5. Tee, Richard & Davies, Andrew & Whyte, Jennifer, 2019. "Modular designs and integrating practices: Managing collaboration through coordination and cooperation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 51-61.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tee, Richard & Davies, Andrew & Whyte, Jennifer, 2019. "Modular designs and integrating practices: Managing collaboration through coordination and cooperation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 51-61.
    2. Anna Cabigiosu, 2018. "When do modular dominant designs emerge? A theoretical framework," Working Papers 05, Venice School of Management - Department of Management, Università Ca' Foscari Venezia.
    3. Hao, Bin & Feng, Yanan, 2018. "Leveraging learning forces in asymmetric alliances: Small firms’ perceived power imbalance in driving exploration and exploitation," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 27-39.
    4. Gilsing, Victor & Nooteboom, Bart & Vanhaverbeke, Wim & Duysters, Geert & van den Oord, Ad, 2008. "Network embeddedness and the exploration of novel technologies: Technological distance, betweenness centrality and density," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(10), pages 1717-1731, December.
    5. Stefano Brusoni & Lorenzo Cassi & Simge Tuna, 2021. "Knowledge integration between technical change and strategy making," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 31(5), pages 1521-1552, November.
    6. Gebauer, Judith & Mahoney, Joseph T., 2013. "Joining Supply and Demand Conditions of IT Enabled Change: Toward an Economic Theory of Inter-firm Modulation," Working Papers 13-0100, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, College of Business.
    7. Vanhaverbeke, W.P.M. & Beerkens, B.E. & Duysters, G.M., 2003. "Explorative and exploitative learning strategies in technology-based alliance networks," Working Papers 03.22, Eindhoven Center for Innovation Studies.
    8. Simge Tuna & Stefano Brusoni & Anja Schulze, 2019. "Architectural knowledge generation: evidence from a field study," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 28(5), pages 977-1009.
    9. Pier Paolo Patrucco, 2012. "Innovative Platforms, Complexity and the Knowledge Intensive Firm," Chapters, in: Michael Dietrich & Jackie Krafft (ed.), Handbook on the Economics and Theory of the Firm, chapter 26, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    10. Zhong, Qi & Sun, Yaowu, 2020. "The more the better? Relational governance in platforms and the role of appropriability mechanisms," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 62-73.
    11. Marlo Raveendran & Phanish Puranam & Massimo Warglien, 2016. "Object Salience in the Division of Labor: Experimental Evidence," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(7), pages 2110-2128, July.
    12. Vikas A. Aggarwal & Brian Wu, 2015. "Organizational Constraints to Adaptation: Intrafirm Asymmetry in the Locus of Coordination," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(1), pages 218-238, February.
    13. Fabrizio Salvador & Juan Pablo Madiedo, 2021. "Enabling Globally Distributed Projects: Effects of Project Interface Match and Related Technical Experience," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 30(4), pages 1052-1081, April.
    14. Yanhua Chen & Suqiong Wei & Hongou Zhang & Yuehua Gao, 2019. "Spatiotemporal Evolution of the Taiwanese-Funded Information Technology and Electronics Industry Value Chain in Mainland China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-18, June.
    15. Jaegul Lee & Nicholas Berente, 2012. "Digital Innovation and the Division of Innovative Labor: Digital Controls in the Automotive Industry," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(5), pages 1428-1447, October.
    16. Anna Cabigiosu & Arnaldo Camuffo, 2012. "Beyond the “Mirroring” Hypothesis: Product Modularity and Interorganizational Relations in the Air Conditioning Industry," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(3), pages 686-703, June.
    17. Nicholas Burton & Peter Galvin, 2022. "The effect of technology and regulation on the co-evolution of product and industry architecture," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 31(4), pages 1056-1085.
    18. Burton, Nicholas & Galvin, Peter, 2022. "Modularity, value and exceptions to the mirroring hypothesis," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 635-650.
    19. Yuliya Snihur & Christoph Zott & Raphael (Raffi) Amit, 2021. "Managing the Value Appropriation Dilemma in Business Model Innovation," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 6(1), pages 22-38, March.
    20. Telma Mendes & Vítor Braga & Carina Silva & Vanessa Ratten, 2023. "Taking a closer look at the regionally clustered firms: How can ambidexterity explain the link between management, entrepreneurship, and innovation in a post-industrialized world?," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 48(6), pages 2007-2053, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:45:y:2016:i:7:p:1436-1448. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/respol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.