IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hbs/wpaper/10-058.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Mirroring Hypothesis: Theory, Evidence and Exceptions

Author

Listed:
  • Lyra J. Colfer

    (Harvard Business School)

  • Carliss Y. Baldwin

    (Harvard Business School, Finance Unit)

Abstract

The mirroring hypothesis predicts that the organizational patterns of a development project (e.g. communication links, geographic collocation, team and firm co-membership) will correspond to the technical patterns of dependency in the system under development. Scholars in a range of disciplines have argued that mirroring is either necessary or a highly desirable feature of development projects, but evidence pertaining to the hypothesis is widely scattered across fields, research sites, and methodologies. In this paper, we formally define the mirroring hypothesis and review 102 empirical studies spanning three levels of organization: within a single firm, across firms, and in open community-based development projects. The hypothesis was supported in 69% of the cases. Support for the hypothesis was strongest in the within-firm sample, less strong in the across-firm sample, and relatively weak in the open collaborative sample. Based on a detailed analysis of the cases in which the mirroring hypothesis was not supported, we introduce the concept of actionable transparency as a means of achieving coordination without mirroring. We present examples from practice and describe the more complex organizational patterns that emerge when actionable transparency allows designers to 'break the mirror.'

Suggested Citation

  • Lyra J. Colfer & Carliss Y. Baldwin, 2010. "The Mirroring Hypothesis: Theory, Evidence and Exceptions," Harvard Business School Working Papers 10-058, Harvard Business School, revised Jun 2010.
    • Handle: RePEc:hbs:wpaper:10-058
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.hbs.edu/research/pdf/10-058.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Modularity; innovation; product and process development; organization design; design structure; organizational structure; organizational ties;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:hbs:wpaper:10-058. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: HBS (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/harbsus.html .

    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.