Abstract
This chapter examines the value of “virtual embeddedness” in the context of firms that develop complex product systems (CoPS). The development of CoPS usually involves many firms working together. Firms may choose to maintain arms-length relationships with their partners. But often they must coordinate new product development (NPD) through more embedded interactions because of the intricate nature of systems development in CoPS. Although embeddedness can be socially constructed, the rise of Internet and digital technologies have given way to the emergence of a new form of embeddedness – virtual embeddedness, which provides CoPS firms with unprecedented opportunities for learning and scope economies in the process of NPD. Based on a new typology of virtual embeddedness in organizational space, I posit that virtual embeddedness is a good complementary vehicle to modularity in the management of NPD between CoPS firms. Accordingly, I draw some implications for future research.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The author of this chapter would like to thank Jacquelyn Thompson for excellent editorial comments
References
Brusoni, S., Prencipe, A., & Pavitt, K. (2001). Knowledge specialization, organizational coupling, and the boundaries of the firm: Why do firms know more than they make? Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 597–621.
Chesbrough, H. (2007). Why companies should have open business models. MIT Sloan Management Review, Winter, 22–28.
Design News. (2007). Boeing’s global collaboration environment pioneers groundbreaking 787 Dreamliner development effort. (http://www.designnews.com/article/13616-oing_s_Global_Collaboration_Environment_Pioneers_Groundbreaking_787_Dreamliner_Development_Effort.php.)
Ethiraj, S. K. (2007). Allocation of inventive effort in complex product systems. Strategic Management Journal, 28(6), 563–584.
Freeman, C., & Soete, L. (1997). The economics of industrial revolution(3rd ed.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Fowler, S. W., Lawrence, T. B., & Morse E. A. (2004). Virtually embedded ties. Journal of Management, 30(5), 647–666.
Gomes-Casseres, B. (1994). Group versus group: How alliance networks compete. Harvard Business Review, 72, 62–84.
Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360–1380.
Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. The American Journal of Sociology, 91, 481–510.
Gulati, R. (1998). Alliances and networks. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 293–317.
Gulati, R., Nohria, N., & Zaheer, A. (2000). Strategic networks. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 203–215.
Hamel, G., Doz, Y. L., & Prahalad, C. K. (1989). Collaborate with your competitors and win. Harvard Business Review, January–February, 133–139.
Hansen, M. T. (1999). The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Academy of Management Review, 44, 82–111.
Henderson, R. M., & Clark K. (1990). Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 9–30.
Hobday, M. (1998). Product complexity, innovation and industrial organization. Research Policy, 26, 689–710.
Lavie, D. (2006). The competitive advantage of interconnected firms: An extension of the resource based view. Academy of Management Review, 31, 638–658.
Lawrence, T. B., Morse E. A., & Fowler, S. W. (2005). Managing your portfolio of connections. Sloan Management Review, 46(2), 59–65.
Morse, E. A., Fowler, S. W., & Lawrence, T. B. (2007). The Impact of virtual embeddedness on the new venture survival: Overcoming the liabilities of newness. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, March, 139–159.
Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2000). Co-opting customer competence. Harvard Business Review, 78(1), 79–87.
Schilling, M. A. (2000). Toward a general modular systems theory and its application to interfirm product modularity. Academy of Management Review, 25(2), 312–334.
Tichy, N. (1973). An analysis of clique formation and structure in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 18(2), 194–208.
Uzzi, B. (1996). The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations. American Sociological Review, 61, 674–698.
Uzzi, B. (1997). Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 35–67.
Uzzi, B., & Spiro, J. (2005). Collaboration and creativity: The small world problem. American Journal of Sociology, 111(2), 447–504.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Uzuegbunam, I.S. (2010). The Strength of IT-Based (Virtual) Interfirm Ties in the Development of Complex Product Systems. In: Nambisan, S. (eds) Information Technology and Product Development. Annals of Information Systems, vol 5. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1081-3_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1081-3_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4419-1080-6
Online ISBN: 978-1-4419-1081-3
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsBusiness and Management (R0)