IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v59y2013i3p659-676.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Pitfalls of Subsystem Integration: When Less Is More

Author

Listed:
  • Sanjiv Erat

    (Rady School of Management, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California 92093)

  • Stylianos Kavadias

    (Scheller College of Business, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia 30332)

  • Cheryl Gaimon

    (Scheller College of Business, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia 30332)

Abstract

In various industries end-product manufacturers acquire core subsystems from upstream technology provider firms and focus primarily on efficient end-product integration. We examine the strategic interactions between a technology firm that introduces a new subsystem and the respective end-product manufacturers ("integrators"). We analyze how the fraction of end-product functionalities prepackaged into the subsystem impacts the optimal introduction strategy and the relative value appropriation power across the industries. Offering a subsystem that performs many end-product functions has a dual effect on the provider's profits. On the positive side, the provider extracts a higher ease-of-use rent from the integrators because of the easier/cheaper integration. On the negative side, such subsystems may curtail the adopters' ability for competitive differentiation and render adoption less valuable. We discuss the role of subsystem functionality in value appropriation in technology markets, and we highlight the perils of subsystem overintegration. This paper was accepted by Kamalini Ramdas, entrepreneurship and innovation.

Suggested Citation

  • Sanjiv Erat & Stylianos Kavadias & Cheryl Gaimon, 2013. "The Pitfalls of Subsystem Integration: When Less Is More," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(3), pages 659-676, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:59:y:2013:i:3:p:659-676
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.1120.1592
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1120.1592
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mnsc.1120.1592?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. Morton I. Kamien & Yair Tauman, 1986. "Fees Versus Royalties and the Private Value of a Patent," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 101(3), pages 471-491.
    2. V. Krishnan & Saurabh Gupta, 2001. "Appropriateness and Impact of Platform-Based Product Development," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(1), pages 52-68, January.
    3. Arora, Ashish & Fosfuri, Andrea, 2003. "Licensing the market for technology," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 277-295, October.
    4. R.J. Aumann & S. Hart (ed.), 2002. "Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 3, number 3.
    5. 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.
    6. Wang, X. Henry, 1998. "Fee versus royalty licensing in a Cournot duopoly model," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 55-62, July.
    7. Sen, Debapriya & Tauman, Yair, 2007. "General licensing schemes for a cost-reducing innovation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 163-186, April.
    8. Nancy T. Gallini & Brian D. Wright, 1990. "Technology Transfer under Asymmetric Information," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 21(1), pages 147-160, Spring.
    9. Bousquet, Alain & Cremer, Helmuth & Ivaldi, Marc & Wolkowicz, Michel, 1998. "Risk sharing in licensing," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 16(5), pages 535-554, September.
    10. Clayton M. Christensen & Matt Verlinden & George Westerman, 2002. "Disruption, disintegration and the dissipation of differentiability," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 11(5), pages 955-993, November.
    11. Fixson, Sebastian K. & Park, Jin-Kyu, 2008. "The power of integrality: Linkages between product architecture, innovation, and industry structure," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 1296-1316, September.
    12. James D. Dana, 2003. "Remark on ÜAppropriateness and Impact of Platform-Based Product DevelopmentÝ," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(9), pages 1264-1267, September.
    13. Amrit Tiwana, 2008. "Does technological modularity substitute for control? A study of alliance performance in software outsourcing," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(7), pages 769-780, July.
    14. Shapiro, Carl, 1985. "Patent Licensing and R&D Rivalry," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(2), pages 25-30, May.
    15. Ashish Arora & Andrea Fosfuri & Alfonso Gambardella, 2004. "Markets for Technology: The Economics of Innovation and Corporate Strategy," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262511819, April.
    16. Kauffman, Stuart & Lobo, Jose & Macready, William G., 2000. "Optimal search on a technology landscape," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 141-166, October.
    17. Michael L. Katz & Carl Shapiro, 1985. "On the Licensing of Innovations," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 16(4), pages 504-520, Winter.
    18. Ulrich, Karl, 1995. "The role of product architecture in the manufacturing firm," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 419-440, May.
    19. Anna Cabigiosu & Arnaldo Camuffo, 2012. "Beyond the “Mirroring” Hypothesis: Product Modularity and Interorganizational Relations in the Air Conditioning Industry," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(3), pages 686-703, June.
    20. Stanley Baiman & Paul E. Fischer & Madhav V. Rajan, 2001. "Performance Measurement and Design in Supply Chains," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(1), pages 173-188, January.
    21. Sanjiv Erat & Stylianos Kavadias, 2006. "Introduction of New Technologies to Competing Industrial Customers," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(11), pages 1675-1688, November.
    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. Wenjie Tang & Tong Wang & Wenxin Xu, 2022. "Sooner or Later? The Role of Adoption Timing in New Technology Introduction," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 31(4), pages 1663-1678, April.
    2. Nicos Savva & Niyazi Taneri, 2015. "The Role of Equity, Royalty, and Fixed Fees in Technology Licensing to University Spin-Offs," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(6), pages 1323-1343, June.
    3. Joachim Henkel & Alexander Hoffmann, 2019. "Value capture in hierarchically organized value chains," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(2), pages 260-279, April.
    4. Wang, Jingqi & Shin, Hyoduk & Zhou, Qin, 2021. "The optimal investment decision for an innovative supplier in a supply chain," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 292(3), pages 967-979.
    5. Aydin, Ayhan & Parker, Rodney P., 2018. "Innovation and technology diffusion in competitive supply chains," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 265(3), pages 1102-1114.
    6. Cui, Qinquan, 2019. "Quality investment, and the contract manufacturer’s encroachment," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 279(2), pages 407-418.
    7. Jingqi Wang & Xiaole Wu & Viswanathan Krishnan, 2018. "Decision Structure and Performance of Networked Technology Supply Chains," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 20(2), pages 199-216, May.
    8. Chen, Jingxian & Liang, Liang & Yao, Dong-qing, 2017. "An analysis of intellectual property licensing strategy under duopoly competition: Component or product-based?," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 193(C), pages 502-513.
    9. Jing, Fei & Lin, Jun & Zhang, Qiao & Qian, Yanjun, 2022. "New technology introduction and product rollover strategies," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 302(1), pages 324-336.
    10. Lo Nigro, Giovanna, 2016. "The effect of early or late R&D inbound alliance on innovation," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 1791-1795.
    11. Li, Qing & Zhang, Huaige & Hong, Xianpei, 2020. "Knowledge structure of technology licensing based on co-keywords network: A review and future directions," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 154-165.

    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. Sudipto Bhattacharya & Claude d’Aspremont & Sergei Guriev & Debapriya Sen & Yair Tauman, 2014. "Cooperation in R&D: Patenting, Licensing, and Contracting," International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, in: Kalyan Chatterjee & William Samuelson (ed.), Game Theory and Business Applications, edition 2, chapter 0, pages 265-286, Springer.
    2. Amir, Rabah & Encaoua, David & Lefouili, Yassine, 2014. "Optimal licensing of uncertain patents in the shadow of litigation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 320-338.
    3. Sen, Debapriya, 2005. "Fee versus royalty reconsidered," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 141-147, October.
    4. Tina Kao, 2009. "Strategic Licensing And Sequential Innovations," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 77(4), pages 512-551, July.
    5. Sen, Debapriya & Tauman, Yair, 2007. "General licensing schemes for a cost-reducing innovation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 163-186, April.
    6. Sen, Debapriya & Tauman, Yair, 2018. "Patent licensing in a Cournot oligopoly: General results," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 37-48.
    7. Sen, Debapriya, 2005. "On the coexistence of different licensing schemes," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 14(4), pages 393-413.
    8. Rabah Amir & David Encaoua & Yassine Lefouili, 2011. "Per-Unit Royalty vs Fixed Fee: The Case of Weak Patents," Working Papers halshs-00595493, HAL.
    9. Bagchi, Aniruddha & Mukherjee, Arijit, 2014. "Technology licensing in a differentiated oligopoly," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 455-465.
    10. Sinha, Uday Bhanu, 2016. "Optimal value of a patent in an asymmetric Cournot duopoly market," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 93-105.
    11. Sen, Debapriya & Stamatopoulos, Giorgos, 2009. "Drastic innovations and multiplicity of optimal licensing policies," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 105(1), pages 7-10, October.
    12. Yair Tauman & Debrapiya Sen, 2012. "Patents and Licenses," Department of Economics Working Papers 12-05, Stony Brook University, Department of Economics.
    13. Toshihiro Matsumura & Noriaki Matsushima, 2010. "Patent licensing, bargaining, and product positioning," ISER Discussion Paper 0775, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Osaka University.
    14. Heywood, John S. & Li, Jianpei & Ye, Guangliang, 2014. "Per unit vs. ad valorem royalties under asymmetric information," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 38-46.
    15. Miao, Chun-Hui, 2016. "Licensing a technology standard," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 33-61.
    16. Ma, Siyu & Sen, Debapriya & Tauman, Yair, 2022. "Optimal patent licensing: from three to two part tariffs," MPRA Paper 111624, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Kabiraj, Abhishek & Kabiraj, Tarun, 2017. "Tariff induced licensing contracts, consumers’ surplus and welfare," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 439-447.
    18. Nisvan Erkal, 2005. "Optimal Licensing Policy in Differentiated Industries," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 81(252), pages 51-60, March.
    19. Junghee Lee & Vish Krishnan & Hyoduk Shin, 2020. "Business Models for Technology-Intensive Supply Chains," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(5), pages 2120-2139, May.
    20. Debapriya Sen & Giorgos Stamatopoulos, 2009. "Technology Transfer Under Returns To Scale," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 77(3), pages 337-365, June.

    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:ormnsc:v:59:y:2013:i:3:p:659-676. 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.