IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ororsc/v13y2002i3p321-338.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Knowledge Partitioning in the Interfirm Division of Labor: The Case of Automotive Product Development

Author

Listed:
  • Akira Takeishi

    (Institute of Innovation Research, Hitotsubashi University, 2-1 Naka, Kunitachi, Tokyo 186-8603, Japan)

Abstract

Drawing on an empirical study on automakers' management of supplier involvement in product development in Japan, this paper shows that when the design of a component is outsourced to a supplier, how much automakers know about the component matters for them to gain a better outcome. While the actual tasks of designing and manufacturing components could be out-sourced, automakers should retain the relevant knowledge to obtain better component design quality. The paper argues that knowledge partitioning should be distinguished from task partitioning, and provides some implications for the knowledge-based theory of the firm.The results indicate that effective pattern of knowledge partitioning differs by the nature of component development project in terms of technological newness. For regular projects, it is more important for the automaker to have a higher level of architectural knowledge (how to coordinate various components for a vehicle) than of component-specific knowledge, which is supposed to be provided by the supplier. However, when the project involves new technology for the supplier, it is important for the automaker to have a higher level of component-specific knowledge to solve unexplored engineering problems together with the supplier. In innovative projects, effective knowledge partitioning seems to demand some overlap between an automaker and a supplier, rather than efficient and clear-cut boundaries that are optimal for regular projects. Such “fluid” nature of knowledge boundaries contingent on the project types poses a challenge for firms seeking both technological leadership and efficiency in established products.Developing and maintaining knowledge about an outsourced component is by no means easy. When the actual design tasks are outsourced, automakers miss substantial opportunities to gain relevant knowledge through learning by doing. Also, obtained knowledge may be diffused among competitors through shared suppliers. Another problem for automakers is that component-specific knowledge is important for only limited cases (innovative projects). Even worse, component-specific knowledge has a trade off relationship with architectural knowledge.Such an inherent dilemma of managing knowledge, however, may provide some automakers with the opportunity to achieve sustainable competitive advantage. Additional analysis shows that one automaker managed both types of knowledge better than others in a manner that deals effectively with the dilemma. Its organizational mechanisms include career development policies, extensive documentation of technological information, internal training programs, and incentive schemes. The difficulty in implementing those mechanisms in a consistent and complementary manner seems to explain why there was a significant variance among automakers in knowledge level, even when the actual tasks were carried out by a shared supplier.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:13:y:2002:i:3:p:321-338
    DOI: 10.1287/orsc.13.3.321.2779
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.3.321.2779
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/orsc.13.3.321.2779?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bruce Kogut & Udo Zander, 1992. "Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative Capabilities, and the Replication of Technology," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 3(3), pages 383-397, August.
    2. Kim B. Clark, 1989. "Project Scope and Project Performance: The Effect of Parts Strategy and Supplier Involvement on Product Development," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(10), pages 1247-1263, October.
    3. J. Carlos Jarillo, 1988. "On strategic networks," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 9(1), pages 31-41, January.
    4. Michael A. Cusumano & Akira Takeishi, 1991. "Supplier relations and management: A survey of Japanese, Japanese‐transplant, and U.S. auto plants," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 12(8), pages 563-588, November.
    5. Masahiko Aoki, 2013. "Toward an Economic Model of the Japanese Firm," Chapters, in: Comparative Institutional Analysis, chapter 18, pages 315-341, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    6. 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.
    7. Takahiro Fujimoto & Takashi Matsuo & Akira Takeishi, 1999. ""Diffusion and Changes of Automobile Parts Procurement Practices- A Report on a Questionnaire Survey for Japanese First-tier Parts Suppliers -"(in Japanese)," CIRJE J-Series CIRJE-J-17, CIRJE, Faculty of Economics, University of Tokyo.
    8. Fine, Charles H. & Whitney, Daniel E., 1996. "Is the make-buy decision process a core competence?," Working papers #140-96. Working paper (S, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    9. von Hippel, Eric, 1990. "Task partitioning: An innovation process variable," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 19(5), pages 407-418, October.
    10. Nicolai J. Foss, 1996. "Knowledge-Based Approaches to the Theory of the Firm: Some Critical Comments," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 7(5), pages 470-476, October.
    11. Bruce Kogut & Udo Zander, 1996. "What Firms Do? Coordination, Identity, and Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 7(5), pages 502-518, October.
    12. Helper, Susan, 1991. "Strategy and Irreversibility in Supplier Relations: The Case of the U.S. Automobile Industry," Business History Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 65(4), pages 781-824, January.
    13. Brusoni, Stefano & Prencipe, Andrea, 2001. "Unpacking the Black Box of Modularity: Technologies, Products and Organizations," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 10(1), pages 179-205, March.
    14. Akira Takeishi, 2001. "Bridging inter‐ and intra‐firm boundaries: management of supplier involvement in automobile product development," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(5), pages 403-433, May.
    15. Ulrich, Karl, 1995. "The role of product architecture in the manufacturing firm," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 419-440, May.
    16. Kathleen R. Conner & C. K. Prahalad, 1996. "A Resource-Based Theory of the Firm: Knowledge Versus Opportunism," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 7(5), pages 477-501, October.
    17. Nicolai J. Foss, 1996. "More Critical Comments on Knowledge-Based Theories of the Firm," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 7(5), pages 519-523, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Paul Walker, 2010. "The (Non)Theory Of The Knowledge Firm," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 57(1), pages 1-32, February.
    2. Alex Eapen & Rekha Krishnan, 2019. "Transferring Tacit Know-How: Do Opportunism Safeguards Matter for Firm Boundary Decisions?," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(4), pages 715-734, July.
    3. 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.
    4. Bruce Heiman & Jack Nickerson, 2002. "Towards Reconciling Transaction Cost Economics and the Knowledge-based View of the Firm: The Context of Interfirm Collaborations," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(1), pages 97-116.
    5. Klaus Heine & Maximilian Kerk, 2017. "Conflict resolution in meta-organizations: the peculiar role of arbitration," Journal of Organization Design, Springer;Organizational Design Community, vol. 6(1), pages 1-20, December.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Frédéric MAZAUD (LEREPS-GRES) & Marie LAGASSE (AIRBUS-FRANCE), 2007. "Vertical sub-contracting relationships strategy, the Airbus First-tier suppliers\' coordination," Cahiers du GRES (2002-2009) 2007-02, Groupement de Recherches Economiques et Sociales.
    9. Jack A. Nickerson & Todd R. Zenger, 2004. "A Knowledge-Based Theory of the Firm—The Problem-Solving Perspective," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(6), pages 617-632, December.
    10. Todd Zenger, 2002. "Crafting Internal Hybrids: Complementarities, Common Change Initiatives, and the Team-Based Organization," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(1), pages 79-95.
    11. Kyle J. Mayer & Deepak Somaya & Ian O. Williamson, 2012. "Firm-Specific, Industry-Specific, and Occupational Human Capital and the Sourcing of Knowledge Work," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(5), pages 1311-1329, October.
    12. Ya-Feng CHANG, 2017. "A critical account of intra -and inter- organizational knowledge management: Diversity, relationship making, and paradoxes," Turkish Economic Review, KSP Journals, vol. 4(4), pages 429-436, December.
    13. Filipe M. Santos & Kathleen M. Eisenhardt, 2005. "Organizational Boundaries and Theories of Organization," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(5), pages 491-508, October.
    14. 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.
    15. Nicholas S. Argyres & Teppo Felin & Nicolai Foss & Todd Zenger, 2012. "Organizational Economics of Capability and Heterogeneity," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(5), pages 1213-1226, October.
    16. Robert Grant, 2013. "Reflections on knowledge-based approaches to the organization of production," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 17(3), pages 541-558, August.
    17. Melissa A. Schilling & H. Kevin Steensma, 2002. "Disentangling the Theories of Firm Boundaries: A Path Model and Empirical Test," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(4), pages 387-401, August.
    18. Joerg Freiling, 2004. "A Competence-based Theory of the Firm," management revue - Socio-Economic Studies, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, vol. 15(1), pages 27-52.
    19. Andrew King, 1999. "Retrieving and Transferring Embodied Data: Implications for the Management of Interdependence Within Organizations," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 45(7), pages 918-935, July.
    20. Susan Helper, 1997. "Complementarity and Cost Reduction: Evidence from the Auto Supply Industry," NBER Working Papers 6033, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    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:inm:ororsc:v:13:y:2002:i:3:p:321-338. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.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.