Premium
Modularity‐as‐Property, Modularization‐as‐Process, and ‘Modularity'‐as‐Frame: Lessons from Product Architecture Initiatives in the Global Automotive Industry
Author(s) -
MacDuffie John Paul
Publication year - 2013
Publication title -
global strategy journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.814
H-Index - 24
eISSN - 2042-5805
pISSN - 2042-5791
DOI - 10.1111/j.2042-5805.2012.01048.x
Subject(s) - modularity (biology) , modular programming , design structure matrix , computer science , interdependence , process management , modular design , automotive industry , new product development , knowledge management , software engineering , systems engineering , business , engineering , marketing , sociology , social science , genetics , biology , programming language , aerospace engineering , operating system
Modularity is a design property of the architecture of products, organizations, and interfirm networks; modularization is a process that affects those designs while also shaping firm boundaries and industry landscapes; and ‘modularity’ is a cognitive frame that guides categorization and interpretation of a wide array of economic phenomena. Modularity‐as‐property and modularization‐as‐process are deeply intertwined; while modularization processes are ubiquitous and perpetual as engineers and managers seek to understand interdependencies across the boundaries of product and organizational architecture, the extent to which modularity‐as‐property is achieved must be assessed empirically. The framing of ‘modularity’ affects strategy by prompting a particular dynamic—and directionality—in the interplay between modularity‐as‐property and modularization‐as‐process. I analyze product architecture initiatives in the global automotive industry, examining first the industry‐level antecedents of the emergent production‐based definition of modules and then two firm‐level modularity initiatives that both were based on this common definition, but framed their strategies differently. In the first case, a ‘modularity’ frame based on a computer industry analogy resulted in overemphasis on achieving modularity‐as‐property that created barriers to learning about cross‐module interdependencies. In the second case, early emphasis on modularization‐as‐process yielded quasi‐integrated organizational arrangements that facilitated long‐term design improvements. Overall, this single‐industry case study demonstrates the importance of examining the context‐specific antecedents of module definition; the multiplicity of potential barriers to modularity that can lead to persistent integrality; the need for longitudinal inquiry into the ‘mirroring’ hypothesis that pays as much attention to process as to property; and the power of modularity as a cognitive frame, which helps explain divergent findings in modularity research.