IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/stratm/v44y2023i7p1616-1652.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Two faces of decomposability in organizational search: Evidence from singles versus albums in the music industry 1995–2015

Author

Listed:
  • Sungyong Chang

Abstract

Research Summary This study proposes that decomposability may generate a trade‐off in search. This study compares a decomposed search (i.e., producing and evaluating a decomposed module) and an integrated search (i.e., producing and evaluating a full‐scale product). While the former can allow firms to experiment with more alternatives than can the latter, it may be more vulnerable to imperfect evaluation because a larger number of promising alternatives could be omitted after the initial evaluation. The reason for this is that not only do more alternatives face an unlucky draw in their initial evaluation but also a decomposed search may lead firms to set a higher performance target for giving a second‐chance opportunity. I test this theory and mechanisms by comparing singles (i.e., decomposed modules) and albums (i.e., full‐scale products) in the music industry. Managerial Summary This study highlights a hidden cost of experimentation‐oriented practices: an increased chance of terminating investment in promising business options (e.g., resources, technologies, and new business projects) after initial small‐scale experimentation. A growing number of technological innovations (e.g., software development kits, cloud computing, and e‐commerce platforms) have enabled firms to experiment with new business options by producing modules rather than full‐scale products. These innovations benefit management practices for experimentation, such as lean start‐up or design thinking, and have thus gained popularity among practitioners. This study suggests that while producing and evaluating a module enables firms to experiment with more options, it may increase the chance of terminating investment in promising business options because firms may set a higher performance target for subsequent investment after initial small‐scale experimentation.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:stratm:v:44:y:2023:i:7:p:1616-1652
    DOI: 10.1002/smj.3479
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3479
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/smj.3479?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. Herbert A. Simon, 1955. "A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 69(1), pages 99-118.
    2. Ewens, Michael & Nanda, Ramana & Rhodes-Kropf, Matthew, 2018. "Cost of experimentation and the evolution of venture capital," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(3), pages 422-442.
    3. Sendil Ethiraj & Yue Maggie Zhou, 2019. "Fight or flight? Market positions, submarket interdependencies, and strategic responses to entry threats," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(10), pages 1545-1569, October.
    4. Jan W. Rivkin & Nicolaj Siggelkow, 2003. "Balancing Search and Stability: Interdependencies Among Elements of Organizational Design," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(3), pages 290-311, March.
    5. Marengo, Luigi, et al, 2000. "The Structure of Problem-Solving Knowledge and the Structure of Organizations," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 9(4), pages 757-788, December.
    6. Richard E. Caves, 2003. "Contracts Between Art and Commerce," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 17(2), pages 73-83, Spring.
    7. 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.
    8. Felipe A. Csaszar, 2012. "Organizational structure as a determinant of performance: Evidence from mutual funds," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(6), pages 611-632, June.
    9. Sah, Raaj Kumar & Stiglitz, Joseph E, 1986. "The Architecture of Economic Systems: Hierarchies and Polyarchies," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(4), pages 716-727, September.
    10. Sendil K. Ethiraj & Daniel Levinthal, 2004. "Modularity and Innovation in Complex Systems," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(2), pages 159-173, February.
    11. Christoph H. Loch & Christian Terwiesch & Stefan Thomke, 2001. "Parallel and Sequential Testing of Design Alternatives," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(5), pages 663-678, May.
    12. Mary J. Benner & Joel Waldfogel, 2016. "The Song Remains the Same? Technological Change and Positioning in the Recorded Music Industry," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 1(3), pages 129-147, September.
    13. Martin Ganco, 2013. "Cutting the Gordian knot: The effect of knowledge complexity on employee mobility and entrepreneurship," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(6), pages 666-686, June.
    14. Ron Adner & Constance E. Helfat, 2003. "Corporate effects and dynamic managerial capabilities," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(10), pages 1011-1025, October.
    15. Michael G. Jacobides & C. Jennifer Tae, 2015. "Kingpins, Bottlenecks, and Value Dynamics Along a Sector," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(3), pages 889-907, June.
    16. Aija Leiponen & Constance E. Helfat, 2010. "Innovation objectives, knowledge sources, and the benefits of breadth," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(2), pages 224-236, February.
    17. Pino G. Audia & Henrich R. Greve, 2006. "Less Likely to Fail: Low Performance, Firm Size, and Factory Expansion in the Shipbuilding Industry," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(1), pages 83-94, January.
    18. Jerker Denrell & Christina Fang, 2010. "Predicting the Next Big Thing: Success as a Signal of Poor Judgment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(10), pages 1653-1667, October.
    19. Thomke, Stefan & von Hippel, Eric & Franke, Roland, 1998. "Modes of experimentation: an innovation process--and competitive--variable," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 315-332, July.
    20. Thorbjørn Knudsen & Daniel A. Levinthal, 2007. "Two Faces of Search: Alternative Generation and Alternative Evaluation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(1), pages 39-54, February.
    21. Sendil K. Ethiraj & Daniel Levinthal & Rishi R. Roy, 2008. "The Dual Role of Modularity: Innovation and Imitation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(5), pages 939-955, May.
    22. 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, April.
    23. Dongil D. Keum & Kelly E. See, 2017. "The Influence of Hierarchy on Idea Generation and Selection in the Innovation Process," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(4), pages 653-669, August.
    24. Belén Villalonga, 2004. "Does Diversification Cause the "Diversification Discount"?," Financial Management, Financial Management Association, vol. 33(2), Summer.
    25. Lant, Theresa & Shapira, Zur, 2008. "Managerial reasoning about aspirations and expectations," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 60-73, April.
    26. Eucman Lee & Phanish Puranam, 2016. "The implementation imperative: Why one should implement even imperfect strategies perfectly," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(8), pages 1529-1546, August.
    27. Jerker Denrell & James G. March, 2001. "Adaptation as Information Restriction: The Hot Stove Effect," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(5), pages 523-538, October.
    28. Vibha Gaba & John Joseph, 2013. "Corporate Structure and Performance Feedback: Aspirations and Adaptation in M-Form Firms," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(4), pages 1102-1119, August.
    29. Dongil D. Keum & J. P. Eggers, 2018. "Setting the Bar: The Evaluative and Allocative Roles of Organizational Aspirations," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(6), pages 1170-1186, December.
    30. Maurizio Zollo & Sidney G. Winter, 2002. "Deliberate Learning and the Evolution of Dynamic Capabilities," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(3), pages 339-351, June.
    31. Bruce Kogut & Nalin Kulatilaka, 1994. "Operating Flexibility, Global Manufacturing, and the Option Value of a Multinational Network," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(1), pages 123-139, January.
    32. Richard R. Nelson & Sidney G. Winter, 1978. "Forces Generating and Limiting Concentration under Schumpeterian Competition," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 9(2), pages 524-548, Autumn.
    33. Gabriel Natividad & Evan Rawley, 2016. "Interdependence and Performance: A Natural Experiment in Firm Scope," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 1(1), pages 12-31, March.
    34. Daniel A. Levinthal & Massimo Warglien, 1999. "Landscape Design: Designing for Local Action in Complex Worlds," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 10(3), pages 342-357, June.
    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. Friederike Wall, 2016. "Agent-based modeling in managerial science: an illustrative survey and study," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 135-193, January.
    2. Oliver Baumann, 2015. "Models of complex adaptive systems in strategy and organization research," Mind & Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Springer;Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 14(2), pages 169-183, November.
    3. Oliver Baumann & Nicolaj Siggelkow, 2013. "Dealing with Complexity: Integrated vs. Chunky Search Processes," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(1), pages 116-132, February.
    4. Puay Khoon Toh & Gautam Ahuja, 2022. "Integration and appropriability: A study of process and product components within a firm's innovation portfolio," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(6), pages 1075-1109, June.
    5. Giovanni Dosi & Marco Faillo & Luigi Marengo & Daniele Moschella, 2011. "Toward Formal Representations of Search Processes and Routines in Organizational Problem Solving. An Assessment of the State of the Art," LEM Papers Series 2011/04, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    6. Friederike Wall, 2023. "Modeling managerial search behavior based on Simon’s concept of satisficing," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 29(2), pages 265-299, June.
    7. John Joseph & Ronald Klingebiel & Alex James Wilson, 2016. "Organizational Structure and Performance Feedback: Centralization, Aspirations, and Termination Decisions," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(5), pages 1065-1083, October.
    8. Isin Guler, 2018. "Pulling the Plug: The Capability to Terminate Unsuccessful Projects and Firm Performance," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 3(3), pages 481-497, September.
    9. Rajat Khanna & Isin Guler, 2022. "Degree assortativity in collaboration networks and invention performance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(7), pages 1402-1430, July.
    10. Daniel A. Levinthal & Maciej Workiewicz, 2018. "When Two Bosses Are Better Than One: Nearly Decomposable Systems and Organizational Adaptation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(2), pages 207-224, April.
    11. Jörg Claussen & Tobias Kretschmer & Nils Stieglitz, 2015. "Vertical Scope, Turbulence, and the Benefits of Commitment and Flexibility," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(4), pages 915-929, April.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. Christian Geisler Asmussen & Marcus M. Larsen & Torben Pedersen, 2016. "Organizational Adaptation in Offshoring: The Relative Performance of Home- and Host-Based Learning Strategies," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(4), pages 911-928, August.
    15. Stephan Leitner & Friederike Wall, 2015. "Simulation-based research in management accounting and control: an illustrative overview," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 26(2), pages 105-129, August.
    16. Friederike Wall, 2021. "Modeling Managerial Search Behavior based on Simon's Concept of Satisficing," Papers 2104.14002, arXiv.org, revised May 2021.
    17. Todd A. Hall & Sharique Hasan, 2022. "Organizational decision-making and the returns to experimentation," Journal of Organization Design, Springer;Organizational Design Community, vol. 11(4), pages 129-144, December.
    18. Yue Maggie Zhou, 2013. "Designing for Complexity: Using Divisions and Hierarchy to Manage Complex Tasks," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(2), pages 339-355, April.
    19. Ganco, Martin, 2017. "NK model as a representation of innovative search," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(10), pages 1783-1800.
    20. Giannoccaro, Ilaria, 2015. "Adaptive supply chains in industrial districts: A complexity science approach focused on learning," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 170(PB), pages 576-589.

    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:44:y:2023:i:7:p:1616-1652. 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: 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.