Designing the Boundaries of the Firm: From “Make, Buy, or Ally” to the Dynamic Benefits of Vertical Architecture

References

• Argyres N. Evidence on the role of firm capabilities in vertical integration decisions. Strategic Management J. (1996) 17(2):129–150Crossref, Google Scholar
• Arrow K. J. Vertical integration and communication. Bell J. Econom. (1975) 6(1):173–183Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baldwin C. Y., Clark K. B.Design Rules: The Power of Modularity (2000) (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barzel Y. Competitive tying arrangements: The case of medical insurance. Econom. Inquiry (1981) 19(4):598–613Crossref, Google Scholar
• Billinger S. Management hybrid vertikaler Integration. (2005) . Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of St. Gallen, St. Gallen, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
• Billinger S., Jacobides M. G. Changing the firm’s digital backbone: How information technology shapes the boundaries of the firm. (2006) . Working paper, London Business School/Leverhalme Trust Digital Transformations Programme, London, UKGoogle Scholar
• Bradach J. L. Using the plural form in the management of restaurant chains. Admin. Sci. Quart. (1997) 42(2):276–303Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bradach J. L., Eccles R. G. Price, authority, and trust: From ideal types to plural forms. Annual Rev. Sociology (1989) 15:97–118Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burgelman R. A. Intraorganizational ecology of strategy making and organizational adaptation: Theory and filed research. Organ. Sci. (1991) 2(3):239–262Link, Google Scholar
• Cacciatori E., Jacobides M. G. The dynamic limits of specialization: Vertical integration reconsidered. Organ. Stud. (2005) 26(12):1851–1883Crossref, Google Scholar
• Camuffo A., Romano P., Vinelli A. Back to the future: Benetton transforms its global network. MIT Sloan Management Rev. (2001) 43(1):46–52Google Scholar
• Chesbrough H. W.Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology (2003) (Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA) Google Scholar
• Chesbrough H. W., Teece D. J. When is virtual virtuous? Organizing for innovation. Harvard Bus. Rev. (1996) 74(1):65–73Google Scholar
• Coase R. H. The nature of the firm. Economica (1937) 4:386–405Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cohen W. M., Levinthal D. A. Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Admin. Sci. Quart. (1990) 35(1):128–152Crossref, Google Scholar
• Conner K. R., Prahalad C. K. A resource-based theory of the firm: Knowledge versus opportunism. Organ. Sci. (1996) 7(5):477–501Link, Google Scholar
• Daft R. L., Lewin A. Can organizational studies begin to break out of the normal science straitjacket? An editorial essay. Organ. Sci. (1990) 1(1):1–9Link, Google Scholar
• DeutscheBank H&M & Inditex—Focus on the figures (and not just the fashion). Analyst Report (2002) 1–110Google Scholar
• Dutta S., Bergen M., Heide J. B. Understanding dual distribution: The case of reps and house accounts. J. Law, Econom. & Organ. (1995) 11(1):189–204Google Scholar
• Dyer J. H. Does governance matter? Keiretsu alliances and asset specificity as sources of Japanese competitive advantage. Organ. Sci. (1996) 7(6):649–666Link, Google Scholar
• Eccles R. G., White H. C. Price and authority in inter-profit center transactions. Amer. J. Sociology (1988) 94:17–51Crossref, Google Scholar
• Firestone W. A. Alternative arguments for generalizing from data as applied to qualitative research. Educational Res. (1993) 22(4):16–23Crossref, Google Scholar
• Foss N. J. Selective intervention and internal hybrids: Interpreting and learning from the rise and decline of the Oticon spaghetti organization. Organ. Sci. (2003) 14(3):331–349Link, Google Scholar
• Gereffi G. International trade and industrial upgrading in the apparel commodity chain. J. Internat. Econom. (1999) 48(1):37–71Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ghemawat P., Nueno J. L. Zara: Fast fashion. (2003) 1–35Harvard Business School Case No. 9-703-497, Harvard Business School, Boston, MAGoogle Scholar
• Ghoshal S., Moran P. Bad for practice: A critique of the transaction cost theory. Acad. Management Rev. (1996) 21(1):13–47Crossref, Google Scholar
• Grant R. M.Contemporary Strategy Analysis (2005) (Blackwell, Malden, MA) Google Scholar
• Grossman S. J., Hart O. D. The costs and benefits of ownership: A theory of vertical and lateral integration. J. Political Econom. (1986) 94(4):691–719Crossref, Google Scholar
• Grubert H., Mutti J. Taxes, tariffs, and transfer pricing in multinational corporate decision making. Rev. Econom. Statist. (1991) 73:285–93Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gulati R., Lawrence P. R., Puranam P. Adaptation in vertical relationships: Beyond incentive conflict. Strategic Management J. (2005) 26(5):415–441Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harrigan K. R.Strategic Flexibility a Management Guide for Changing Times (1985) (Lexington Books, Lexington, MA) Google Scholar
• Hart O.Firms, Contracts, and Financial Structure (1995) (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hayek F. A. v. The use of knowledge in society. Amer. Econom. Rev. (1945) 35(4):519–530Google Scholar
• Heide J. B. Plural governance in industrial purchasing. J. Marketing (2003) 67(4):18–29Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jacobides M. G. Industry change through vertical disintegration: How and why markets emerged in mortgage banking. Acad. Management J. (2005) 48(3):465–498Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jacobides M. G. The architecture and design of organizational capabilities. Indust. Corporate Change (2006) 15(1Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jacobides M. G., Hitt L. M. Losing sight of the forest for the trees? Productive capabilities and gains from trade as drivers of vertical scope. Strategic Management J. (2005) 26(13):1209–1227Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jacobides M. G., Winter S. G. The co-evolution of capabilities and transaction costs: Explaining the institutional structure of production. Strategic Management J. (2005) 26(5):395–413Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jacobides M. G., Winter S. G. Entrepreneurship and firm boundaries: The theory of A firm. J. Management Stud. (2006) . ForthcomingGoogle Scholar
• Kay N. Searching for the firm: The role of decision in the economics of organizations. Indust. Corporate Change (2000) 9(4):683–707Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kogut B., Zander U. What firms do? Coordination, identity, and learning. Organ. Sci. (1996) 7(5):502–518Link, Google Scholar
• Langlois R. N. Transaction-cost economics in real time. Indust. Corporate Change (1992) 1(1):99–127Crossref, Google Scholar
• Langlois R. N. The vanishing hand: The changing dynamics of industrial capitalism. Indust. Corporate Change (2003) 12(2):351–385Crossref, Google Scholar
• Leiblein M. J., Miller D. J. An empirical examination of transaction- and firm-level influences on the vertical boundaries of the firm. Strategic Management J. (2003) 24(9):839–859Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lovas B., Ghoshal S. Strategy as guided evolution. Strategic Management J. (2000) 21(9):875–896Crossref, Google Scholar
• Miles M. B., Huberman A. M.Qualitative Data Analysis (1994) (Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA) Google Scholar
• Parmigiani A. Why do firms both make and buy? An investigation on concurrent sourcing. (2004) . Working paper, University of Michigan Business School, Ann Arbor, MIGoogle Scholar
• Powell W. W. Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization. Res. Organ. Behavior (1990) 12:295–336Google Scholar
• Richardson J. Vertical integration and rapid response in fashion apparel. Organ. Sci. (1996) 7(4):400–412Link, Google Scholar
• Sabel C. F. Learning by monitoring: The institutions of economic development. The Handbook of Economic Sociology (1994) (Princeton University Press, Philadelphia, PA) Google Scholar
• Sanchez R., Mahoney J. T. Modularity, flexibility, and knowledge management in product and organization design. Strategic Management J. (1996) 17:63–76Crossref, Google Scholar
• Santos F. M., Eisenhardt K. M. Organizational boundaries and theories of organization. Organ. Sci. (2005) 16(5):491–508Link, Google Scholar
• Schilling M. A. Toward a general modular systems theory and its application to interfirm product modularity. Acad. Management Rev. (2000) 25(2):312–334Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shelanski H. A., Klein P. G. Empirical research in transaction cost economics: A review and assessment. J. Law, Econom., & Organ. (1995) 11(2):335–361Google Scholar
• Silver M.Enterprise and the Scope of the Firm (1984) (Martin Robertson, London, UK) Google Scholar
• Teece D. J. Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Res. Policy (1986) 15:285–305Crossref, Google Scholar
• Thompson J. D.Organizations in Action (1967) (McGraw-Hill, New York) Google Scholar
• Williamson O. E.The Economic Institutions of Capitalism: Firms, Markets, Relative Contracting (1985) (The Free Press, New York) Google Scholar
• Williamson O. E. Strategizing, economizing, and economic organization. Strategic Management J. (1991) 12(8):75–94Crossref, Google Scholar
• Williamson O. E. The analysis of discrete structural alternatives. Admin. Sci. Quart. (1996) 36(2):269–296Crossref, Google Scholar
• Williamson O. E. Strategy research: Governance and competence perspectives. Strategic Management J. (1999) 20(12):1087–1108Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yin R. K.Case Study Research: Design and Methods (1994) (Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA) Google Scholar
• Zenger T. R., Hesterly W. S. The dissaggregation of corporations: Selective intervention, high-powered incentives, and molecular units. Organ. Sci. (1997) 8(3):209–234Link, Google Scholar