IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/indinn/v16y2009i3p291-314.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What Really Drives the Adoption of Modular Organizational Forms? An Institutional Perspective from Italian Industry-Level Data

Author

Listed:
  • Diego Campagnolo
  • Arnaldo Camuffo

Abstract

While the rise of modular organizational forms is a global phenomenon, explicit causal models are currently available only for the US case. To date, no study has been conducted outside the USA about what drives firms to use modular organizational forms, and why would firms in some industries generally rely on more modular organizational forms than firms in other industries. Building on Schilling and Steensma's work of 2001, we apply general systems modularity theory to the Italian case and explain why in some industries there is a greater use of modular organizational forms using data from 68 manufacturing industries. The results of our regression analysis diverge significantly from the US case showing that, in the Italian case, organizational modularity is driven by labor intensity, industry specificities and nation-specific factors.

Suggested Citation

  • Diego Campagnolo & Arnaldo Camuffo, 2009. "What Really Drives the Adoption of Modular Organizational Forms? An Institutional Perspective from Italian Industry-Level Data," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(3), pages 291-314.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:indinn:v:16:y:2009:i:3:p:291-314
    DOI: 10.1080/13662710902923818
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13662710902923818
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/13662710902923818?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
    ---><---

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Carliss Y. Baldwin & Kim B. Clark, 2000. "Design Rules, Volume 1: The Power of Modularity," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262024667, December.
    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. Giovanni Costa & Arnaldo Camuffo, 2014. "The evolution of human resource management in Italy: a historical-institutional perspective," Chapters, in: Bruce E. Kaufman (ed.), The Development of Human Resource Management Across Nations, chapter 11, pages 269-299, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. Piran, Fabio Antonio Sartori & Lacerda, Daniel Pacheco & Camargo, Luis Felipe Riehs & Viero, Carlos Frederico & Dresch, Aline & Cauchick-Miguel, Paulo Augusto, 2016. "Product modularization and effects on efficiency: An analysis of a bus manufacturer using data envelopment analysis (DEA)," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 182(C), pages 1-13.
    3. John N. Walsh & Jamie O’Brien, 2017. "A Knowledge-Based Framework for Service Management," Journal of Information & Knowledge Management (JIKM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 16(04), pages 1-31, December.
    4. Albert Jolink & Eva Niesten, 2012. "Hybrid Governance," Chapters, in: Michael Dietrich & Jackie Krafft (ed.), Handbook on the Economics and Theory of the Firm, chapter 12, Edward Elgar Publishing.

    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. Filippo Carlo Wezel & Gino Cattani & Johannes M. Pennings, 2006. "Competitive Implications of Interfirm Mobility," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(6), pages 691-709, December.
    2. Srivardhini K. Jha & E. Richard Gold & Laurette Dubé, 2021. "Modular Interorganizational Network Governance: A Conceptual Framework for Addressing Complex Social Problems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-21, September.
    3. Ehrenhard, Michel & Kijl, Bjorn & Nieuwenhuis, Lambert, 2014. "Market adoption barriers of multi-stakeholder technology: Smart homes for the aging population," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 306-315.
    4. Yuchen Zhang & Wei Yang, 2022. "Breakthrough invention and problem complexity: Evidence from a quasi‐experiment," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(12), pages 2510-2544, December.
    5. Tian Heong Chan & Shi-Ying Lim, 2023. "The Emergence of Novel Product Uses: An Investigation of Exaptations in IKEA Hacks," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(5), pages 2870-2892, May.
    6. Singh, Anuraag & Triulzi, Giorgio & Magee, Christopher L., 2021. "Technological improvement rate predictions for all technologies: Use of patent data and an extended domain description," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    7. Seppo Kuula & Harri Haapasalo & Arto Tolonen, 2018. "Cost-efficient co-creation of knowledge intensive business services," Service Business, Springer;Pan-Pacific Business Association, vol. 12(4), pages 779-808, December.
    8. Najda-Janoszka, Marta, 2011. "Zatrzymywanie Wartości W Sieciach Kooperacyjnych Przedsiębiorstw [Value Appropriation in Cooperative Networks]," MPRA Paper 42582, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Gediminas Adomavicius & Jesse Bockstedt & Alok Gupta, 2012. "Modeling Supply-Side Dynamics of IT Components, Products, and Infrastructure: An Empirical Analysis Using Vector Autoregression," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 23(2), pages 397-417, June.
    10. Pinar Ozcan & Filipe M. Santos, 2015. "The market that never was: Turf wars and failed alliances in mobile payments," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(10), pages 1486-1512, October.
    11. repec:ers:journl:v:xv:y:2012:i:sie:p:157-194 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Gambardella, Alfonso & Conti, Raffaele & Novelli, Elena, 2018. "Specializing in Generality: Firm Strategies When Intermediate Markets Work," CEPR Discussion Papers 12782, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    13. Morgan Dwyer & Bruce Cameron & Zoe Szajnfarber, 2015. "A Framework for Studying Cost Growth on Complex Acquisition Programs," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(6), pages 568-583, November.
    14. Félicia Saïah & Diego Vega & Harwin de Vries & Joakim Kembro, 2023. "Process modularity, supply chain responsiveness, and moderators: The Médecins Sans Frontières response to the Covid‐19 pandemic," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 32(5), pages 1490-1511, May.
    15. Fei Li & Jin Chen & Ying Ying, 2019. "Innovation Search Scope, Technological Complexity, and Environmental Turbulence: A N-K Simulation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(16), pages 1-12, August.
    16. Dütting, Paul & Talgam-Cohen, Inbal & Roughgarden, Tim, 2017. "Modularity and greed in double auctions," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 83199, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    17. Bruce Fallick & Charles A. Fleischman & James B. Rebitzer, 2006. "Job-Hopping in Silicon Valley: Some Evidence Concerning the Microfoundations of a High-Technology Cluster," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 88(3), pages 472-481, August.
    18. Markus Menz & Sven Kunisch & Julian Birkinshaw & David J. Collis & Nicolai J. Foss & Robert E. Hoskisson & John E. Prescott, 2021. "Corporate Strategy and the Theory of the Firm in the Digital Age," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(7), pages 1695-1720, November.
    19. 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.
    20. Bent Flyvbjerg & Alexander Budzier & Jong Seok Lee & Mark Keil & Daniel Lunn & Dirk W. Bester, 2022. "The Empirical Reality of IT Project Cost Overruns: Discovering A Power-Law Distribution," Papers 2210.01573, arXiv.org.
    21. Kolloch, Michael & Dellermann, Dominik, 2018. "Digital innovation in the energy industry: The impact of controversies on the evolution of innovation ecosystems," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 254-264.

    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:taf:indinn:v:16:y:2009:i:3:p:291-314. 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 Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/CIAI20 .

    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.