IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/indcch/v19y2010i5p1493-1514.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Vanishing hands? On the link between product and organization architecture

Author

Listed:
  • Kerstin Press
  • Markus M. Geipel

Abstract

The present article investigates whether modular product architectures deliver better and more differentiated products, given their production in disintegrated and integrated settings. A theoretic model benchmarks the performance of disintegration and integration for different degrees of product modularity by measuring both product quality and differentiation. In line with conventional wisdom, (nearly) modular products befit disintegration insofar as disintegration increases quality. However, disintegration only leads to greater product differentiation than integration if there is substantial entry and exit. These findings--albeit developed with stylised models of disintegration and integration--provide a possible explanation for empirical results showing a decrease in product variety when modular products were produced by independent manufacturers (disintegration). Moreover, the model results predict that industries with limited entry and exit as well as strong winner-take-all dynamics tend to incur a loss in variety if modular products are produced in a disintegrated setting. Copyright 2010 The Author 2010. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Associazione ICC. All rights reserved., Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Kerstin Press & Markus M. Geipel, 2010. "Vanishing hands? On the link between product and organization architecture," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 19(5), pages 1493-1514, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:indcch:v:19:y:2010:i:5:p:1493-1514
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/icc/dtq021
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    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:oup:indcch:v:19:y:2010:i:5:p:1493-1514. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/icc .

    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.