IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/sru/ssewps/120.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Change, Coordination, and Capabilities

Author

Abstract

Empirical studies on coordination of economic activities focused on the two polar cases of governance mode, namely vertical integration and market exchanges. Whether firms should be vertically integrated or lever market exchanges in the face of change is, however, debated. Two positions have emerged. Some scholars argue that the vertically integrated firm is the appropriate mode of coordination when change occurs, while market exchanges are more appropriate for dealing with stable contexts (Teece, 1996). On the other hand, Harrigan (1984, 1985) contends that firms should rely on market exchanges when technological change renders upstream capabilities obsolete. Based on two case studies of the aircraft engine industry, this paper introduces the concept of systems integration as the primary coordination mechanism in-between markets and hierarchies that firms employ to cope with change. The focus is on multitechnology settings. Multitechnology, multicomponent products intensify the coordination efforts for firms developing them and therefore provide a vantage point to study coordination modes in the face of technological change. The paper argues that systems integration, as a coordination mechanism, comprises a set of different technological and organizational skills, ranging from component assembly through the understanding and integration of the technological disciplines underlying a product, to project management. It shows that from a competitive point of view, systems integration is most appropriately understood as knowledge integration. Systems integrating firms are understood as those organizations that set up the network of actors involved in the industry and lead it from an organizational and technological viewpoint.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrea Prencipe, 2004. "Change, Coordination, and Capabilities," SPRU Working Paper Series 120, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
  • Handle: RePEc:sru:ssewps:120
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/documents/sewp120.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stefano Brusoni, 2003. "Authority in the Age of Modularity," SPRU Working Paper Series 101, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    2. Argyres, Nicholas S., 1995. "Technology strategy, governance structure and interdivisional coordination," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 337-358, December.
    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. Susan Helper & Mari Sako, 2010. "Management innovation in supply chain: appreciating Chandler in the twenty-first century," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 19(2), pages 399-429, April.
    2. Phanish Puranam & Harbir Singh & Saikat Chaudhuri, 2009. "Integrating Acquired Capabilities: When Structural Integration Is (Un)necessary," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(2), pages 313-328, April.
    3. Thomas Mellewigt & Glenn Hoetker & Martina Lütkewitte, 2018. "Avoiding High Opportunism Is Easy, Achieving Low Opportunism Is Not: A QCA Study on Curbing Opportunism in Buyer–Supplier Relationships," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(6), pages 1208-1208, December.
    4. Jens Frøslev Christensen, 1998. "The Dynamics of the Diversified Corporation and the Role of Central Management of Technology," DRUID Working Papers 98-4, DRUID, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies.
    5. Maria Guadalupe & Hongyi Li & Julie Wulf, 2014. "Who Lives in the C-Suite? Organizational Structure and the Division of Labor in Top Management," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(4), pages 824-844, April.
    6. Bongo Adi & Kenneth Amaeshi & Suminori Tokunaga, 2005. "Rational Choice, Scientific Method and Social Scientism," Method and Hist of Econ Thought 0509001, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Michael, Steven C., 2000. "The effect of organizational form on quality: the case of franchising," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 295-318, November.
    8. Kwak, Jooyoung & Lee, Heejin & Chung, Do Bum, 2012. "The evolution of alliance structure in China’s mobile telecommunication industry and implications for international standardization," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(10), pages 966-976.
    9. Mo Chen & Aseem Kaul & Brian Wu, 2019. "Adaptation across multiple landscapes: Relatedness, complexity, and the long run effects of coordination in diversified firms," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(11), pages 1791-1821, November.
    10. Jan-Erik Johanson, 2006. "Business in Metropolis: Local Governance of for-Profit Organisations in Finland," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 57-77, March.
    11. Yingyi Qian & Gerard Roland & Chenggang Xu, 1999. "Coordinating Changes in M-form and U-form Organizations," William Davidson Institute Working Papers Series 284, William Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan.
    12. Oliver Hart & John Moore, 2005. "On the Design of Hierarchies: Coordination versus Specialization," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 113(4), pages 675-702, August.
    13. Matolcsy, Zoltan & Wakefield, James, 2017. "Multinational headquarter control of wholly owned foreign subsidiaries," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 275-293.
    14. Lichtenthaler, Ulrich, 2010. "Organizing for external technology exploitation in diversified firms," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 63(11), pages 1245-1253, November.
    15. Lívia Lopes Barakat & Torben Pedersen & Marcio Amaral-Baptista & Sherban Leornardo Cretoiu & Paulo Bento, 2022. "Too Much of Two Good Things: Explicating the Limited Complementarity Between Drivers of MNC Headquarters’ Absorptive Capacity," Management International Review, Springer, vol. 62(3), pages 393-426, June.
    16. Francesco Giacobbe & Zoltan Matolcsy & James Wakefield & Tom Smith, 2016. "An investigation of wholly-owned foreign subsidiary control through transaction cost economics theory," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 56(4), pages 1041-1070, December.
    17. Vikas A. Aggarwal & Brian Wu, 2015. "Organizational Constraints to Adaptation: Intrafirm Asymmetry in the Locus of Coordination," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(1), pages 218-238, February.
    18. Grote, Markus & Herstatt, Cornelius & Gemünden, Hans-Georg, 2012. "Cross-divisional innovation in large, multi-divisional firms: Economic relevance and managerial actions," Working Papers 66, Hamburg University of Technology (TUHH), Institute for Technology and Innovation Management.
    19. Arasti, Mohammadreza & Khaleghi, Mahdi & Noori, Javad, 2017. "Corporate-level technology strategy and its linkage with corporate strategy in multi-business companies: IKCO case study," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 243-252.
    20. Daniel Albert, 2018. "Organizational Module Design and Architectural Inertia: Evidence from Structural Recombination of Business Divisions," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(5), pages 890-911, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    technological change; systems integration; knowledge integration; vertical integration; market exchanges;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O33 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes
    • L22 - Industrial Organization - - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior - - - Firm Organization and Market Structure

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:sru:ssewps:120. 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: University of Sussex Business School Communications Team (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/spessuk.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.