Modularity in Technology, Organization, and Society (original) (raw)
Related papers
Modularity in technology and organization
Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 2002
This paper is an attempt to raid both the literature on modular design and the literature on property rights to create the outlines of a modularity theory of the firm. Such a theory will look at firms, and other organizations, in terms of the partitioning of rights-understood as protected spheres of authority-among cooperating parties. And it will assert that organizations reflect nonmodular structures, that is, structures in which decision rights, rights of alienation, and residual claims to income do not all reside in the same hands.
The Impact of Modularity on Intellectual Property and Value Appropriation
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2011
Distributed innovation in open systems is an important trend in the modern global economy. In general, distributed innovation is made possible by the modularity of the underlying product or process. But despite the documented technical benefits of modularity, history shows that it is not always straightforward for firms to capture value in a modular system. This paper brings together the theory of modularity from the engineering and management literatures with the modern economic theory of property rights and relational contracts to address the question of value appropriation. It defines three generic threats to intellectual property (IP) and models the interactive impact of modularity and state-sanctioned IP rights on these threats. It identifies strategies for capturing value in so-called "open systems" in which IP is distributed among several parties. It shows why open systems should be designed as modular systems. Finally, it analyzes in detail the strategy of capturing value by maintaining exclusive control of an essential module in an open system.
The Modularity of Technology and Organisations. Implications for the Theory of the Firm
RePEc: Research Papers in Economics, 2011
This paper gives a selective overview on contributions studying issues of complexity, near-decomposability and modularity in relation to economic behaviour and the theory of the firm. In the first part the paper reviews contributions studying the relationship between human problem solving in the face of complex problems and the emergence of specific technological and organisational designs. The second part the paper reviews recent research that has studied the impact of modular designs in the organisation of production at the firm level on industrial organisation and dynamics. The paper draws some conclusions on future avenues of research.
The Origins, Nature, and Content of the Right to Property: Five Economic Solitudes
The thesis of this article is that the now extensive contemporary literature on the economics of property rights has generated more heat than light. Economists have invoked at least five distinct theories of ownership or property rights in their work. Unfortunately, authors frequently fail to acknowledge the existence of competing theories of property rights that stand as conceptual rivals to the theory that they, often implicitly, invoke. Nowhere is this problem more evident than in the literature on regulatory takings, a literature that has a justifiable reputation for its inconsistent conclusions. Other fields in which theories of property rights play an important role include intellectual property, the economics of contracts, competition analysis and policy, externalities, and the economics of information. This article compares and evaluates five competing theories of property rights that have been advanced and used by economists: classical liberalism, utilitarianism, legal positivism, pragmatism, and modern libertarianism. These theories present divergent accounts of the origin and the nature of ownership claims. They also conceptualize the evolution of ownership institutions as well as ownership patterns quite differently. There are also important differences in incentives that exist under institutional regimes based on each theory.
The basic question that arises in connection with the distinction between property and contract is, what accounts for the general scope that property rights and duties, unlike their contractual counterparts, share? The most typical theoretical approach to this question has so far been to emphasize certain extrinsic circumstances, such as transaction costs or the normative priority of protecting property over contract rights. But the problem with this approach is that it implies that the source of the difference (whatever it is) does not originate in either property or contract but rather lies outside both (for instance, in the costs of making and carrying out transactions concerning external objects). In that, it fails to consider whether the general scope of property rights and duties is, in fact, a side effect of the special structure of property (vis-à-vis contract). On the account I shall develop, property is a framework of coordination in which participants approach the resolution of their competing claims (such as for use of and access to an object) together. In this way, property turns coordination itself into a form of respectful recognition among persons, quite apart from the functions it occasionally serves (such as promoting efficiency or sustaining freedom). This formal way of distinguishing between property and contract lies at the centre of the characterization of the rights and the duties in question that I shall pursue in these pages. Moreover, and perhaps more dramatically, this characterization provides the necessary normative resources to elaborate on their normativity: I shall argue that property, unlike contract, expresses the categorical value of regarding others as free and equal persons (at least, in the sphere of action onto which property maps).
The concept of modularity in management studies: A literature review
International Journal of Management Reviews, 2009
During the last decade, modularity has attracted the attention of numerous management scholars, and both theoretical and empirical studies on this topic have flourished. However, this broad-based appeal has generated some controversies and ambiguities on how modularity should be defined, measured and used in managerially meaningful ways. This paper reviews the concept of modularity as a design principle of complex systems in management studies. Applying this criterion, 125 studies were selected and classified, grouped according to their prevalent unit of analysis: products, production systems and organizations. Although all these studies are based on Simon's seminal work on the hierarchical and nearly decomposable nature of complex systems . The architecture of complexity. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 106, 467-482), this paper shows that they offer different definitions, measures and applications of the modularity concept. This review reveals the implicit structure of meanings underlying this literature and emphasizes that ambiguity in definitions and measures impedes rigorous empirical studies capable of understanding the relationship between modularity in product, in production and in organization design. Cautions and directions for future research are discussed.i jmr_260 259..283
Property: A Bundle of Rights? Prologue to the Property Symposium
2011
The claim I wish to make here is that this “dominant paradigm” is really no explanatory model at all, but represents the absence of one.“Property is a bundle of rights” is little more than a slogan. The use of the word “slogan” is not intended to be merely polemical. By “slogan” I mean an expression that conjures up an image, but which does not represent any clear thesis or set of propositions. James E. Penner