IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/stratm/v39y2018i9p2547-2565.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The power and limits of modularity: A replication and reconciliation

Author

Listed:
  • Christina Fang
  • Ji‐hyun (Jason) Kim

Abstract

Research Summary: We ask two questions: First, what are the underlying mechanisms that explain the power of modularity? Second, is the power of modularity robust in nonmodular problems? We replicate and then reconcile the key results in two prior models on modularity: E&L and S‐search. Our results yield several important insights. First, a significant portion of the advantage enjoyed by S‐search is attributed to multi‐bit mutation. Second, organization‐evaluation needs to be used in combination with multi‐bit mutation. Third, when the underlying problem structure becomes nonmodular, S‐search outperforms E&L search, even though the advantage is reduced. More generally, organizational designers need to pay close attention to how different elements of modular search interact, and avoid making incremental adjustments. Managerial Summary: Modularity in product or organizational design is an approach that divides a system into smaller modules and attempts to augment the system level performance by experimenting with new modules. Because of its potential benefits such as parallel problem solving, adaptability in turbulent environment, or high speed in experimentation, both scholars and practitioners subscribed to the “power of modularity” thesis. Despite its popularity, there are significant number of cases where the superiority of modular design does not hold. We compare and contrast two representative prior studies that had different views on modeling organizational evolution under a modular design principle. By doing so, we are able to uncover what contributes to the superiority of modular design. Our results suggest that, when conducting experimentation under a modular design, it is important to (a) experiment multiple decision components simultaneously within a single module; and (b) allow evaluation of the changes to be made by the module‐level manager not by the organization‐level manager. When the manager does not know whether the modularity in organizational design fits with the modularity in the task, it is advised to do multiple experimentation in a single module at a time while allowing the organization‐level manager to evaluate the changes.

Suggested Citation

  • Christina Fang & Ji‐hyun (Jason) Kim, 2018. "The power and limits of modularity: A replication and reconciliation," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(9), pages 2547-2565, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:stratm:v:39:y:2018:i:9:p:2547-2565
    DOI: 10.1002/smj.2918
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2918
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/smj.2918?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
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Robin Cowan & Nicolas Jonard, 2023. "Modular organization and informal structure: Modularity, performance, and the alignment of organizational networks," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 32(1), pages 187-201.
    2. Sai Yayavaram & Sasanka Sekhar Chanda, 2023. "Decision making under high complexity: a computational model for the science of muddling through," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 29(2), pages 300-335, June.
    3. Dirk Martignoni & Thomas Keil & Markus Lang, 2020. "Focus in Searching Core–Periphery Structures," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(2), pages 266-286, March.
    4. Sungyong Chang, 2023. "Two faces of decomposability in organizational search: Evidence from singles versus albums in the music industry 1995–2015," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(7), pages 1616-1652, July.

    More about this item

    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:bla:stratm:v:39:y:2018:i:9:p:2547-2565. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/0143-2095 .

    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.