Modularity‐as‐Property, Modularization‐as‐Process, and ‘Modularity'‐as‐Frame: Lessons from Product Architecture Initiatives in the Global Automotive Industry

Global Strategy Journal - Tập 3 Số 1 - Trang 8-40 - 2013
John Paul MacDuffie1
1Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia Pennsylvania U.S.A

Tóm tắt

Modularity is a design property of the architecture of products, organizations, and interfirm networks; modularization is a process that affects those designs while also shaping firm boundaries and industry landscapes; and ‘modularity’ is a cognitive frame that guides categorization and interpretation of a wide array of economic phenomena. Modularity‐as‐property and modularization‐as‐process are deeply intertwined; while modularization processes are ubiquitous and perpetual as engineers and managers seek to understand interdependencies across the boundaries of product and organizational architecture, the extent to which modularity‐as‐property is achieved must be assessed empirically. The framing of ‘modularity’ affects strategy by prompting a particular dynamic—and directionality—in the interplay between modularity‐as‐property and modularization‐as‐process. I analyze product architecture initiatives in the global automotive industry, examining first the industry‐level antecedents of the emergent production‐based definition of modules and then two firm‐level modularity initiatives that both were based on this common definition, but framed their strategies differently. In the first case, a ‘modularity’ frame based on a computer industry analogy resulted in overemphasis on achieving modularity‐as‐property that created barriers to learning about cross‐module interdependencies. In the second case, early emphasis on modularization‐as‐process yielded quasi‐integrated organizational arrangements that facilitated long‐term design improvements. Overall, this single‐industry case study demonstrates the importance of examining the context‐specific antecedents of module definition; the multiplicity of potential barriers to modularity that can lead to persistent integrality; the need for longitudinal inquiry into the ‘mirroring’ hypothesis that pays as much attention to process as to property; and the power of modularity as a cognitive frame, which helps explain divergent findings in modularity research.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

Abernathy WJ, 1984, Industrial Renaissance: Producing a Competitive Future for America

10.1287/mnsc.47.5.611.10482

10.1287/orsc.1090.0493

10.1093/icc/dtm036

10.7551/mitpress/2366.001.0001

10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.611

Berger S., 2006, How We Compete: What Companies Around the World are Doing to Make It in Today's Global Economy

Bingham C, The process of schema emergence: assimilation, deconstruction, unitization and the plurality of analogies, Academy of Management Journal.

10.2307/3094825

10.1287/orsc.1110.0655

10.1080/13662710902923818

10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00260.x

Colfer L, 2010, The mirroring hypothesis: theory, evidence, and exceptions

Donovan D., 1999, The Dawn of the Megasupplier: Winning Supplier Strategies in an Evolving Auto Industry

10.5465/amj.2007.24160888

10.1287/mnsc.1030.0145

10.1287/orsc.1100.0612

Fine C., 1999, Clockspeed

FineC WhitneyD.1996.Is the make‐buy process a core competence?Working paper Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge MA.

10.1016/j.jom.2004.08.006

10.1007/0-387-29197-0_13

10.1016/j.respol.2008.04.026

10.1504/IJATM.2005.007181

Ford Motor Company, 1999, Modularity Task Force Report

10.1504/IJATM.2004.005328

10.1002/smj.4250160919

10.2307/2666981

10.1080/1366271042000200448

10.1002/smj.528

10.5465/AMJ.2005.17407912

10.1287/orsc.1050.0167

10.1016/j.respol.2006.09.005

JacobidesMG MacDuffieJP TaeCJ.2012.When value sticks around: why automobile OEMs still rule their sector. Working paper London Business School London U.K.

10.1002/smj.460

10.1287/orsc.1070.0340

Klepper S., 1996, Entry, exit, growth, and innovation over the product life cycle, American Economic Review, 86, 562

10.1287/orsc.7.5.502

10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400244

10.1057/jibs.2012.4

10.1016/S0167-2681(02)00056-2

10.1016/0048-7333(92)90030-8

Lung Y, 1999, Coping with Variety: Flexible Productive Systems for Product Variety in the Auto Industry, 224

MacDuffie JP, 2007, The Firm as Collaborative Community, 416

10.1093/jeg/lbn024

10.1287/orsc.1100.0602

10.5465/AMR.2006.22528166

10.1093/0199263221.003.0012

Sako M., 2009, Platforms, Markets, and Innovation, 261

Sako M, 1999, Modular strategies in cars and computers, Financial Times, 6, 4

SakoM WarburtonM.2002.Modularity and outsourcing project: report of the European team. Working paper International Motor Vehicle Program Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge MA.

10.1002/smj.4250171107

10.2307/259016

10.2307/3094893

Simon HA., 1981, The architecture of complexity. In The Sciences of the Artificial, 192

Skinner W., 1974, The focused factory, Harvard Business Review, 52, 113

10.1111/j.0737-6782.2005.00128.x

10.1093/icc/11.3.451

10.1002/smj.164

10.1504/IJATM.2001.000047

10.1002/1097-0266(200010/11)21:10/11<1147::AID-SMJ128>3.0.CO;2-R

10.1016/0048-7333(94)00775-3

Utterback J., 1996, Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation

Weick K., 1969, The Social Psychology of Organizing

Whitford J, 2012, Pragmatism, practice, and the boundaries of organization

Yin RK., 1994, Case Study Research: Design and Methods

10.1111/j.1467-9310.2010.00629.x

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Global Strategy Journal

Tập 3 Số 1

8-40

Thông tin tác giả