IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/rvmgts/v14y2020i4d10.1007_s11846-018-0310-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Component complementarity and transaction costs: the evolution of product design

Author

Listed:
  • Nicholas Burton

    (Northumbria University)

  • Peter Galvin

    (Edith Cowan University)

Abstract

The issue of whether firms design and develop products with modular product architectures that benefit from the efficiencies of using the market, or integrated product architectures that allow for leveraging firm capabilities is a central question within the product architecture literature. Empirical results show that product modularisation increases over time across a range of industries. However, evidence of increasing (re)integration at the product and industry level has also been hinted at in a limited set of studies. The fact that product architectures potentially oscillate between the modular and integrated designs, as well as often adopting a hybrid form, highlights the need for an integrated explanation concerning how and why this evolution occurs. On this basis we use draw upon the notions of synergistic specificity and product component complementarity. By considering the trade-offs between different types of value capture that are possible in modular and integrated architectures, we are able to build a basic explanation for the evolution of product architectures and their governance choices over the long-run. The proposed typology and discussion helps to synthesise existing evidence and provides the foundation for further empirical research.

Suggested Citation

  • Nicholas Burton & Peter Galvin, 2020. "Component complementarity and transaction costs: the evolution of product design," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 14(4), pages 845-867, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:rvmgts:v:14:y:2020:i:4:d:10.1007_s11846-018-0310-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s11846-018-0310-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11846-018-0310-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11846-018-0310-3?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. Raghu Garud & Arun Kumaraswamy, 1995. "Technological and organizational designs for realizing economies of substitution," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(S1), pages 93-109.
    2. West, Joel, 2003. "How open is open enough?: Melding proprietary and open source platform strategies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(7), pages 1259-1285, July.
    3. Jacobides, Michael G. & Knudsen, Thorbjorn & Augier, Mie, 2006. "Benefiting from innovation: Value creation, value appropriation and the role of industry architectures," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(8), pages 1200-1221, October.
    4. Lyra J. Colfer & Carliss Y. Baldwin, 2016. "The mirroring hypothesis: theory, evidence, and exceptions," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 25(5), pages 709-738.
    5. 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.
    6. Clark, Kim B., 1985. "The interaction of design hierarchies and market concepts in technological evolution," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 14(5), pages 235-251, October.
    7. Sendil K. Ethiraj & Daniel Levinthal & Rishi R. Roy, 2008. "The Dual Role of Modularity: Innovation and Imitation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(5), pages 939-955, May.
    8. Schilling, Melissa, 1999. "Winning the standards race: : Building installed base and the availability of complementary goods," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 265-274, June.
    9. Carliss Y. Baldwin, 2008. "Where do transactions come from? Modularity, transactions, and the boundaries of firms," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 17(1), pages 155-195, February.
    10. Michael G. Jacobides & Sidney G. Winter, 2005. "The co‐evolution of capabilities and transaction costs: explaining the institutional structure of production," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(5), pages 395-413, May.
    11. Nicholas S. Argyres & Todd R. Zenger, 2012. "Capabilities, Transaction Costs, and Firm Boundaries," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(6), pages 1643-1657, December.
    12. Patrycja Klimas & Wojciech Czakon, 2018. "Organizational innovativeness and coopetition: a study of video game developers," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 12(2), pages 469-497, March.
    13. Kevin Boudreau, 2010. "Open Platform Strategies and Innovation: Granting Access vs. Devolving Control," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(10), pages 1849-1872, October.
    14. Peter Galvin & Andre Morkel, 2001. "Modularity On Industry Structure: The Case Of The World The Effect Of Product Bicycle Industry," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(1), pages 31-47.
    15. Clayton M. Christensen & Matt Verlinden & George Westerman, 2002. "Disruption, disintegration and the dissipation of differentiability," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 11(5), pages 955-993, November.
    16. 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.
    17. Langlois, Richard N. & Robertson, Paul L., 1992. "Networks and innovation in a modular system: Lessons from the microcomputer and stereo component industries," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 297-313, August.
    18. von Hippel, Eric, 1990. "Task partitioning: An innovation process variable," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 19(5), pages 407-418, October.
    19. Akira Takeishi, 2002. "Knowledge Partitioning in the Interfirm Division of Labor: The Case of Automotive Product Development," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(3), pages 321-338, June.
    20. Zubac, Angelina, 2018. "Capitalism as discourse: How can strategic management scholars contribute new insights and refocus debate?," Journal of Management & Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 24(2), pages 189-208, March.
    21. Charles I. Stubbart, 1989. "Managerial Cognition: A Missing Link In Strategic Management Research," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(4), pages 325-347, July.
    22. 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.
    23. Shibata, Tomoatsu & Yano, Masaharu & Kodama, Fumio, 2005. "Empirical analysis of evolution of product architecture: Fanuc numerical controllers from 1962 to 1997," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 13-31, February.
    24. Ulrich, Karl, 1995. "The role of product architecture in the manufacturing firm," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 419-440, May.
    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. Qizhi Dai, 2023. "Understanding how platform modularity enhances network effects," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 33(1), pages 1-17, December.
    2. Burton, Nicholas & Galvin, Peter, 2022. "Modularity, value and exceptions to the mirroring hypothesis," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 635-650.
    3. Galvin, Peter & Burton, Nicholas & Singh, Prakash J. & Sarpong, David & Bach, Norbert & Teo, Stephen, 2020. "Network rivalry, Competition and Innovation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    4. Chih-Hsing Sam Liu & Jun-You Lin & Sheng-Fang Chou, 2022. "Wielding a double-edged sword? JV investment geographic diversity and parent's innovation," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 16(6), pages 1783-1816, August.
    5. 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.
    6. Galvin, Peter & Burton, Nicholas & Nyuur, Richard, 2020. "Leveraging inter-industry spillovers through DIY laboratories: Entrepreneurship and innovation in the global bicycle industry," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).

    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. 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.
    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. Meissner, Dirk & Burton, Nicholas & Galvin, Peter & Sarpong, David & Bach, Norbert, 2021. "Understanding cross border innovation activities: The linkages between innovation modes, product architecture and firm boundaries," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 762-769.
    4. 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.
    5. Gawer, Annabelle, 2014. "Bridging differing perspectives on technological platforms: Toward an integrative framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(7), pages 1239-1249.
    6. 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.
    7. Rahul Kapoor, 2013. "Persistence of Integration in the Face of Specialization: How Firms Navigated the Winds of Disintegration and Shaped the Architecture of the Semiconductor Industry," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(4), pages 1195-1213, August.
    8. 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.
    9. Stefano Brusoni & Joachim Henkel & Michael G Jacobides & Samina Karim & Alan Mac & Phanish Puranam & Melissa Schilling, 2023. "The power of modularity today: 20 years of “Design Rules”," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 32(1), pages 1-10.
    10. Burton, Nicholas & Galvin, Peter, 2022. "Modularity, value and exceptions to the mirroring hypothesis," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 635-650.
    11. Andreas Reinstaller, 2012. "Modularity and its Implications for the Theory of the Firm," Chapters, in: Michael Dietrich & Jackie Krafft (ed.), Handbook on the Economics and Theory of the Firm, chapter 32, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    12. Dewen Yao, 2013. "Understanding Industrial Innovation and Upgrade from Modularization’s Perspective," Journal of Knowledge Management, Economics and Information Technology, ScientificPapers.org, vol. 3(6), pages 1-11, December.
    13. Johann Peter & Benedikt Alexander, 2023. "Exploring the structure of internal combustion engine and battery electric vehicles: implications for the architecture of the automotive industry," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 32(1), pages 129-154.
    14. Kwak, Kiho & Kim, Namil, 2022. "Industrial Leadership Changes without Technological Discontinuity: Modularization, Institution-Led Market Discontinuity, and Market Development Strategy," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    15. Andreas Reinstaller, 2011. "The Modularity of Technology and Organisations. Implications for the Theory of the Firm," WIFO Working Papers 398, WIFO.
    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. Carliss Y. Baldwin & Joachim Henkel, 2015. "Modularity and intellectual property protection," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(11), pages 1637-1655, November.
    18. Jacobides, Michael G. & Cennamo, Carmelo & Gawer, Annabelle, 2024. "Externalities and complementarities in platforms and ecosystems: From structural solutions to endogenous failures," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(1).
    19. Panos Constantinides & Ola Henfridsson & Geoffrey G. Parker, 2018. "Introduction—Platforms and Infrastructures in the Digital Age," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 29(2), pages 381-400, June.
    20. Vincent Frigant & Damien Talbot, 2003. "Convergence et diversité du passage à la production modulaire dans l'aéronautique et l'automobile en Europe," Post-Print hal-00246171, HAL.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Product architecture; Modularity; Transaction costs; Capabilities; Complementarity;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • L22 - Industrial Organization - - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior - - - Firm Organization and Market Structure
    • L23 - Industrial Organization - - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior - - - Organization of Production
    • L25 - Industrial Organization - - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior - - - Firm Performance

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:spr:rvmgts:v:14:y:2020:i:4:d:10.1007_s11846-018-0310-3. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.