The Pitfalls of Subsystem Integration: When Less Is More

References

• Arora A, Fosfuri A. Licensing the market for technology. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. (2003) 52(2):277–295Crossref, Google Scholar
• Arora A, Fosfuri A, Gambardella A. Markets for Technology: The Economics of Innovation and Corporate Strategy (2004) (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) Google Scholar
• Arrow KJ. The Rate and Direction of Incentive Activity (1962) (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ) Google Scholar
• Baiman S, Fischer PE, Rajan MV. Performance measurement and design in supply chains. Management Sci. (2001) 27(1):173–188Link, Google Scholar
• Baldwin CY, Clark KB. Design Rules: The Power of Modularity (1999) I(MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) Google Scholar
• Bousquet A, Cremer H, Ivaldi M, Wolkowicz M. Risk sharing in licensing. Internat. J. Indust. Organ. (1998) 16(5):535–554Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cabigiosu A, Camuffo A. Beyond the “mirroring” hypothesis: Product modularity and interorganizational relations in the air conditioning industry. Organ. Sci. (2012) 23(3):686–703Link, Google Scholar
• Christensen CM. The drivers of vertical disintegration. (1994) . Technical report, Harvard Business School, BostonGoogle Scholar
• Christensen CM, Verlinden M, Westerman G. Disruption, disintegration and the dissipation of differentiability. Indust. Corporate Change (2002) 11(5):955–993Crossref, Google Scholar
• Clark KB. Project scope and project performance: The effects of parts and supplier strategy in product development. Management Sci. (1989) 35(10):1247–1263Link, Google Scholar
• Dana J. Remark on appropriateness and impact of platform-based product development. Management Sci. (2003) 49(9):1264–1267Link, Google Scholar
• Erat S, Kavadias S. Introduction of new technologies to competing industrial customers. Management Sci. (2006) 52(11):1675–1688Link, Google Scholar
• Fixson SK, Park J-K. The power of integrality: Linkages between product architecture, innovation, and industry structure. Res. Policy (2008) 37(8):1296–1316Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gallini NT, Wright BD. Technology transfer under asymmetric information. RAND J. Econom. (1990) 21(1):147–160Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ghosh M, John G. When should original equipment manufacturers use branded component contracts with suppliers. J. Marketing Res. (2009) 46(5):597–611Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kamien MI, Aumann RJ, Hart S. Patent licensing. Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications (1992) 1(Elsevier Science, Amsterdam) . Chap. 11Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kamien MI, Tauman Y. The private value of a patent: A game theoretic analysis. J. Econom. (1984) 4(Supplement):93–118Google Scholar
• Kamien MI, Tauman Y. Fee versus royalty and the private value of a patent. Quart. J. Econom. (1986) 101(3):471–491Crossref, Google Scholar
• Katz ML, Shapiro C. On the licensing of innovations. RAND J. Econom. (1985) 16(4):504–520Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kauffman S, Lobo J, Macready WG. Optimal search on a technology landscape. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. (2000) 43(2):141–166Crossref, Google Scholar
• Krishnan V, Gupta S. Appropriateness and impact of platform-based product development. Management Sci. (2001) 47(1):22–36Link, Google Scholar
• Mello S, Mackey W, Lasser R, Tait R. Value Innovation Portfolio Management: Achieving Double-Digit Growth Through Customer Value (2006) (J. Ross Publishing, Ft. Lauderdale, FL) Google Scholar
• Miller RW. (2005) . Personal communication with Stylianos Kavadias, Spring 2005, Georgia Institute of Technology, AtlantaGoogle Scholar
• Rostoker M. A survey of corporate licensing. IDEA: J. Law Tech. (1984) 24(2):59–92Google Scholar
• Sanchez R, Mahoney JT. Modularity, flexibility, and knowledge management in product and organization design. Strategic Management J. (1996) 17(Special Issue):63–76Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schilling MA. Toward a general modular systems theory and its application to interfirm product modularity. Acad. Management Rev. (2000) 25(2):312–334Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sen D, Tauman Y. General licensing schemes for a cost-reducing innovation. Games Econom. Behav. (2007) 59(1):163–186Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shapiro C. Patent licensing and R&D rivalry. Amer. Econom. Rev. (1985) 75(2):25–30Google Scholar
• Tiwana A. Does technological modularity substitute for control? A study of alliance performance in software outsourcing. Strategic Management J. (2008) 29(7):769–780Crossref, Google Scholar
• Topkis DM. Minimizing a submodular function on a lattice. Oper. Res. (1978) 26(2):305–321Link, Google Scholar
• Ülkü S, Schmidt GM. Matching product architecture and supply chain configuration. Production Oper. Management (2011) 20(1):16–31Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ulrich K. The role of product architecture in the manufacturing firm. Res. Policy (1995) 24(3):419–440Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wang XH. Fee versus royalty licensing in a Cournot duopoly model. Econom. Lett. (1998) 60(1):55–62Crossref, Google Scholar
• Worren N, Moore K, Cardona P. Modularity, strategic flexibility, and firm performance: A study of the home appliance industry. Strategic Management J. (2002) 23(12):1123–1140Crossref, Google Scholar