Product and Organizational Modularity: A Contingent View of the Mirroring Hypothesis

Abstract

This study aims to advance a contingent view of the mirroring hypothesis, focusing on the causal effect of product modularity on organizational modularity. It compares the group of papers (‘orthodox’) that confirms the mirroring hypothesis with the group of papers (‘critique’) that assumes a critical position. The citation network analysis performed on the ‘critique’ group searches for contingent factors that explain under which circumstances the mirroring hypothesis does not hold. Results show that the mirroring hypothesis is contingent on a set of six distinct, although interdependent, factors: (i) component technological change and diversity; (ii) innovativeness of product architecture; (iii) complexity of product architecture; (iv) capability dispersion along the supply network; (v) rivalry among leading firms & among suppliers; and (vi) logistics costs. This study discusses each contingent factor in turn, highlighting theories or approaches that ought to be used in conjunction (not in contrast) with the modularity theory to explain the boundaries of firms and industries. A contingent view of the mirroring hypothesis reconciles the two opposite views on the mirroring hypothesis, enhances its ramifications into the theory of the firm, and gives insights to practitioners.

Modular designs and integrating practices: Managing collaboration through coordination and cooperation

“…Initial work on modular designs assumed, sometimes implicitly, that the design of the product is mirrored in its organization (Henderson and Clark, 1990;Sanchez and Mahoney, 1996). While this is a useful baseline assumption, an emerging line of work has considered this relationship more explicitly, referring to this as the "mirroring hypothesis", attempting to understand when product design choices are mirrored at the organizational level, and when not (Colfer and Baldwin, 2016;Sorkun and Furlan, 2017). We draw on this work analyzing the relation between product and organizational design choices, focusing in particular on the relationship between cooperation and coordination and how they influence these choices.…”

Linking product modularity to supply chain integration and flexibility

“…In the growth stage, manufacturers face unpredictable and rapidly changing market environments, and they tend to focus on product innovation and customization (Rink and Swan 1979;Mahapatra et al 2012). Introducing new or modified products and adjusting production volume in a short period of time require interactions and collaboration among internal functions (Sorkun and Furlan 2017). Compared with the growth stage, the value of using multifunctional teams in internal operations, such as new product and module development, is reduced because products are standardized, and dominant designs have appeared in markets during the maturity stage.…”

“…Supplier integration allows a manufacturer to leverage and exploit suppliers' abilities to build a responsive supply network, allowing the manufacturer to manage uncertain market environments by adjusting supply chain operations quickly and efficiently (Flynn et al 2010). Supplier integration also enables manufacturers to learn and develop module-specific knowledge, which can be used to change product mix and provide a broad product line (Sorkun and Furlan 2017). Supplier integration hence has a stronger impact on flexibility in the growth stage than in the maturity stage.…”

Dissemination and continuous improvement of a CTSA-based software platform, SPARCRequest©, using an open source governance model

“…Also contributing to the long-term sustainability of SPARCRequest © are the modularity and configurability of its code, both of which increased dramatically after adoption of OS governance. Indeed, the organized but decentralized governance and specified workflow associated with OS initiatives tend to lead to more robust, modular, and configurable software platforms [18][19][20][21]. The increased configurability and modularity seen in SPARCRequest © code after institution of OS governance confirm a tenet advanced by Conway [22] and others [23][24][25]that a product mirrors the (governance) structure of the organization that produced it.…”