IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/sru/ssewps/101.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Authority in the Age of Modularity

Author

Abstract

This paper builds upon on-going research into the organisational implications of 'modularity'. Advocates of modularity argue that the Invisible Hand of markets is reaching activities previously controlled through the Visible Hand of hierarchies. This paper argues that there are cognitive limits to the extent of division of labour: what kinds of problems firms solve, and how they solve them, set limits to the extent of division of labour, irrespective of the extent of the market. This paper analyses the cognitive limits to the division of labour relying on an in-depth case study of engineering design activities. On this basis, this paper explains why co-ordinating increasingly specialised bodies of knowledge, and increasingly distributed learning processes, requires the presence of knowledge integrating firms even in the presence of modular products. Such firms, relying on their wide in-house scientific and technological capabilities, have the 'authority' to identify, propose, and implement solutions to complex problems. In so doing, they co-ordinate networks of suppliers of both components and specialised competencies.

Suggested Citation

  • Stefano Brusoni, 2003. "Authority in the Age of Modularity," SPRU Working Paper Series 101, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    • Handle: RePEc:sru:ssewps:101
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/documents/sewp101.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Timothy J. Sturgeon, 2002. "Modular production networks: a new American model of industrial organization," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 11(3), pages 451-496, June.
    2. Andrew Davies, 1997. "The Life Cycle of a Complex Product System," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 1(03), pages 229-256.
    3. Pavitt, Keith, 1998. "Technologies, Products and Organization in the Innovating Firm: What Adam Smith Tells Us and Joseph Schumpeter Doesn't," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 7(3), pages 433-452, September.
    4. Radner, Roy, 1992. "Hierarchy: The Economics of Management," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 30(3), pages 1382-1415, September.
    5. Arora, Ashish & Gambardella, Alfonso, 1994. "The changing technology of technological change: general and abstract knowledge and the division of innovative labour," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(5), pages 523-532, September.
    6. 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.
    7. Anna Grandori, 1997. "Governance Structures, Coordination Mechanisms and Cognitive Models," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 1(1), pages 29-47, March.
    8. Ashish Arora & Alfonso Gambardella & Enzo Rullani, 1997. "Division of Labour and the Locus of Inventive Activity," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 1(1), pages 123-140, March.
    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. Susan Helper & Mari Sako, 2010. "Management innovation in supply chain: appreciating Chandler in the twenty-first century," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 19(2), pages 399-429, April.
    2. Andrea Prencipe, 2004. "Change, Coordination, and Capabilities," SPRU Working Paper Series 120, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    3. Dieter Ernst, 2005. "Limits to Modularity: Reflections on Recent Developments in Chip Design," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(3), pages 303-335.
    4. Bongo Adi & Kenneth Amaeshi & Suminori Tokunaga, 2005. "Rational Choice, Scientific Method and Social Scientism," Method and Hist of Econ Thought 0509001, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Vermeulen, Ben & De Kok, Ton, 2013. "A value network development model and implications for innovation and production network management," MPRA Paper 51393, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Virginia Acha & Lucia Cusmano, 2005. "Governance and co-ordination of distributed innovation processes: patterns of R&D co-operation in the upstream petroleum industry," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(1-2), pages 1-21.

    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. Stefano Brusoni & Keith Pavitt, 2003. "Problem solving and the co-ordination of innovative activities," SPRU Working Paper Series 93, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    2. Stefano Brusoni & Andrea Prencipe, 2006. "Making Design Rules: A Multidomain Perspective," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(2), pages 179-189, April.
    3. Susan Helper & Mari Sako, 2010. "Management innovation in supply chain: appreciating Chandler in the twenty-first century," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 19(2), pages 399-429, April.
    4. Stefano Brusoni & Paola Criscuolo & Aldo Geuna, 2005. "The knowledge bases of the world's largest pharmaceutical groups: what do patent citations to non-patent literature reveal?," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(5), pages 395-415.
    5. Michael Fritsch & Viktor Slavtchev, 2007. "What determines the efficiency of regional innovation systems?," Jena Economics Research Papers 2007-006, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    6. Jean-Luc Gaffard, 2003. "Coordination, marché et organisation. Essai sur l'efficacité et la stabilité des économies de marché," Revue de l'OFCE, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 85(2), pages 235-270.
    7. Balconi, Margherita, 2002. "Tacitness, codification of technological knowledge and the organisation of industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 357-379, March.
    8. repec:spo:wpecon:info:hdl:2441/6491 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Kannan Srikanth & Phanish Puranam, 2014. "The Firm as a Coordination System: Evidence from Software Services Offshoring," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(4), pages 1253-1271, August.
    10. 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.
    11. Dedrick, Jason & Kraemer, Kenneth L., 2015. "Who captures value from science-based innovation? The distribution of benefits from GMR in the hard disk drive industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(8), pages 1615-1628.
    12. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/6491 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Kirsten Foss & Nicolai J. Foss, 2003. "Authority in the Context of Distributed Knowledge," DRUID Working Papers 03-08, DRUID, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies.
    14. 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.
    15. Becker, Markus C. & Salvatore, Pasquale & Zirpoli, Francesco, 2005. "The impact of virtual simulation tools on problem-solving and new product development organization," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(9), pages 1305-1321, November.
    16. Mario Benassi, 2009. "Investigating modular organizations," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 13(3), pages 163-192, August.
    17. Breschi, Stefano & Lissoni, Francesco & Malerba, Franco, 2003. "Knowledge-relatedness in firm technological diversification," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 69-87, January.
    18. Eric von Hippel, 1998. "Economics of Product Development by Users: The Impact of "Sticky" Local Information," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(5), pages 629-644, May.
    19. 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.
    20. Giovanni Dosi & Mike Hobday & Luigi Marengo & Andrea Prencipe, 2002. "The Economics Of System Integration: Toward An Evolutionary Interpretation," LEM Papers Series 2002/16, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    21. Kamuriwo, Dzidziso Samuel & Baden-Fuller, Charles, 2016. "Knowledge integration using product R&D outsourcing in biotechnology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(5), pages 1031-1045.
    22. Hopkins, Michael M. & Martin, Paul A. & Nightingale, Paul & Kraft, Alison & Mahdi, Surya, 2007. "The myth of the biotech revolution: An assessment of technological, clinical and organisational change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 566-589, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    modularity; division of labour limits; knowledge integrating firms;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • L2 - Industrial Organization - - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior
    • O3 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights

    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:sru:ssewps:101. 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: University of Sussex Business School Communications Team (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/spessuk.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.