Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Investigating modular organizations

  • Published:
Journal of Management & Governance Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper explores a new organizational form—modular organization—through a case-study approach. The aim is to isolate the specific properties that set this form apart from other known organizational forms. The case studies examined focus on the manufacturing process of small, medium and large companies in different industries, and provide a clear picture of modular organization. The analysis shows that modular organizations are an innovation per se and not the mere outcome of modular products. Modular organizations leverage decomposition by employing small units within a larger organization. Each unit is responsible for a specific domain, it is quasi-independent and makes autonomous decisions on various business issues. Modular organizations deal with suppliers directly, and are characterized by a flat structure. Companies based on modular organization can improve their efficiency in the high-tech and mature markets, and fully exploit their resources.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Interview with Mr. Ghilardi at New Holland plant in Modena.

  2. Ibidem.

References

  • Arora, A., Gambardella, A., Rullani, E. (1998). Division of labour and the locus of inventive activity. Journal of Management and Governance, 1(1), 123–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, W. E. (1992). Network organization in theory and practice. In N. Nohria & R. G. Eccles (Eds.), Networks and organizations: Structure, form and action (pp. 397–429). Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin, C., & Clark, K. B. (1997). Managing in an age of modularity. Harvard Business Review, 75(5), 84–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin, C., & Clark, K. (2000). Design rules, volume 1: The power of modularity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowman, E. H., & Kogut, B. M. (1995). Redesigning the firm. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandon, J. (1996). Cellular manufacturing: Integrating technology and management. Somerset, England: Research Studies Press LTD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brusoni, S. (2005). The limits of specialization: Problem solving and coordination in ‘modular networks’. Organization Studies, 26(12), 1885–1907.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brusoni, S., & Prencipe, A. (2001). Unpacking the black box of modularity: Technology, product, and organisation. Industrial and Corporate Change, 10(1), 179–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brusoni, S., & Prencipe, A. (2006). Making design rules: A multidomain perspective. Organization Science, 17(2), 179–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). Management of innovation. London: Routledge Kegan & Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Casseres, B. G. (1996). The alliance revolution: The new shape of business rivalry. Boston: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, A. D. (1962). Strategy and structure: Chapters in the history of the American industrial enterprise. Boston: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, A. D. (1990). Scale and scope: The dynamics of industrial capitalism. Cambridge: Belknap.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H., & Teece, D. (1996). When is virtual virtuous: Organizing for innovation. Harvard Business Review, 74(1), 65–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. K., & Kusunoki, K. (2001). The modularity trap: Innovation, technology phase-shifts, and the resulting limits of virtual organizations. In I. Nonaka & D. Teece (Eds.), Managing industrial knowledge (pp. 202–230). London: Sage Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ciborra, C. (1996). The platform organization: Recombining strategies, structures and surprises. Organization Science, 7, 103–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cusumano, M. (1992). Shifting economies: From craft production to flexible systems and software factories. Research Policy, 21, 453–480.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cusumano, M., & Nobeoka, K. (1988). Thinking beyond lean. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daft, R. L., & Lewin, A. Y. (1993). Where are the theories of new organizational forms? An editorial essay. Organization Science, 4(4), i–vii.

    Google Scholar 

  • Djelic, M. L., & Ainamo, A. (1999). The coevolution of new organizational forms in the fashion industry: A historical and comparative study of France, Italy and United States. Organization Science, 10(5), 622–637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunbar, R. L. M., & Starbuck, W. H. (2006). Learning to designing organizations and learning from designing them. Organization Science, 17(2), 171–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eccles, R. G., & Crane, D. B. (1998). Doing deals: Investment banks at work. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M., & Brown, S. L. (1999). Patching: Restitching business portfolios in dynamic markets. Harvard Business Review, 77, 72–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ethiraj, S. K., & Levinthal, D. (2004). Modularity and innovation in complex systems. Management Science, 50(2), 159–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galbraith, J. (1973). Designing complex organizations. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galunic, C. D., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2001). Architectural innovation and modular corporate forms. Academy of Management Journal, 44(6), 1229–1249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ganesh, M. V., & Srinivasan, G. (1994). A heuristic approach for the cell formation problem. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 26(1), 193–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garud, R., & Kumaraswamy, A. (1993). Changing competitive dynamics in network industries: An exploration of Sun Microsystems open systems strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 351–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghosh, B. (1990). Equipment investment decision analysis in cellular manufacturing. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 10(7), 5–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, C. G. (2001). A dilemma in response: Examining the newspaper industry’s response to the internet, Graduate School of Business Administration, DBA dissertation. Boston: Harvard.

  • Grandori, A., & Soda, G. (1995). Inter-firm networks: Antecedents, mechanisms and forms. Organization Studies, 16(2), 183–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hallen, B. L. (2005). Organizational modularity: What is it? Stanford, CA: Management Science and Engineering Department, Stanford University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herriot, R. E., & Firestone, W. A. (1983). Multisite qualitative policy research: Optimizing description and generalizability. Educational Researcher, 12, 14–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoskinsson, R. E., Hill, C. W. L., & Kim, H. (1993). The multidivisional structure: Organizational fossil or source of value? Journal of Management, 19(2), 269–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kamrani, A. K., Parasei, H. R., & Liles, D. H. (Eds.). (1995). Planning, design, and analysis of cellular manufacturing systems. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science B. V.

  • Langlois, R., & Robertson, P. (1992). Networks and innovation in a modular system: Lessons from the microcomputer and stereo component industries. Research Policy, 21, 297–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, P., & Lorsch, J. (1967). Organization and environment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, J. A., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2003). Cross-business synergy: Recombination, modularity and the multi-business team. Best Paper Proceedings, Academy of Management, Seattle.

  • Miha, H. (2006). Japanese micro-profit center: A case study of the amoeba system at the Kyocera Corporation. In Y. Monden, et al. (Eds.), Value-based management of the rising sun. World Scientific Publishing Company

  • Miles, R. E., Snow, C. C., Mathews, J. A., Miles, G., & Coleman, H. J. (1997). Organizing in the knowledge age: Anticipating the cellular form. Academy of Management Executive, 11(4), 7–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, P., & O’Leary, T. (1993). Accounting expertise and the politics of the product: Economic citizenship and modes of corporate governance. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 18(2/3), 187–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, P., & O’Leary, T. (1994). Accounting, ‘economic citizenship’ and the spatial reordering or manufacture. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 19(1), 15–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mintzberg, H. (1993). Structure in fives: Designing effective organizations. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monden, Y., et al. (2006). Value-based management of the rising sun. World Scientific Publishing Company

  • Nelson, A., & Byers, T. (2005). Organizational modularity and intra-university relationships between entrepreneurship education and technology transfer. Stanford, CA: Management Science and Engineering Department, Stanford University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nohria, N., & Eccles, R. G. (1992). Networks and organizations: Structure, form, and action. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Offodile, O. F., Mehrez, A., & Grznar, J. (1994). Cellular manufacturing: A taxonomic review. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 13 (3), 196–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly, C., & Tushman, M. (2004). The ambidextrous organization. Harvard Business Review, 82, 74–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quan, X. I., & Chesbrough, H. (2006). Hierarchical modular R&D structure and intellectual property protection evidence from multinational R&D labs in China. Paper draft for JIBS submission, Jan 2006.

  • Richard, P., & Devinney, T. M. (2005). Modular strategies: B2B technology and architectural knowledge. California Management Review, 47(4), 86–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, D. F., & Shafer, S. M. (1995). Measuring cellular manufacturing performance. In: A. K. Kamrani, H. R. Parsaei, & D. H. Liles, (Eds.), (1995). Planning, design, and analysis of cellular manufacturing systems. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science B. V.

  • Sanchez, R., & Mahoney, J. T. (1996). Modularity, flexibility, and knowledge management in product and organisation design. Strategic Management Journal, 17(Winter, special issue), 63–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanderson, S. W., & Uzumeri, M. (1997). Managing product families. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sankaran, S., & Kasilingam, R. G. (1993). On cell size and machine requirements planning in group technology. European Journal of Operational Research, 69, 373–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schilling, M. A. (2000). Towards a general modular systems theory and its application to inter-firm product modularity. Academy of Management Review, 25, 312–334.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schilling, M. A., & Steensma, K. H. (2001). The use of modular organizational forms: An industry-level analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 44(6), 1149–1168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, R. W. (2001). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Semler, R. (1994). Maverick. London: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1962). The architecture of complexity. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society (pp. 467–482). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  • Simon, H. A. (1976). How complex are complex systems? Proceedings of the biannual meeting of philosophy of science association (pp. 507–522). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  • Simon, H. A. (2002). Near decomposability and the speed of evolution. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(3), 587–599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sturgeon, T. (2002). Modular production networks: A new model of industrial organization. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(3), 451–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swamidass, P. M. (1994). Technology on the factory floor. Washington, DC: The Manufacturing Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action. New York: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trist, E. (1981). The evolution of socio-technical systems: A conceptual framework and an action research program. Ontario: Ontario Quality of Working Life Centre.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tunisini, A. (2006). Modularizzazione del prodotto e processi di creazione del valore nei mercati industriali. Urbino, Italy: University of Economics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly, C. A. (2004). The ambidextrous organization. Harvard Business Review, 82(4), 74–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulich, E., & Weber, W. G. (1996). Dimensions, criteria and evaluation of work group autonomy. In M. A. West (Ed.), Handbook of work group psychology. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich, K. T. (1995). The role of product architecture in the manufacturing firm. Research Policy, 24, 419–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wemmerlov, U., & Hyer, N. L. (1989). Cellular manufacturing in the US industry: A survey of users. International Journal of Production Research, 27, 1511–1530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism: Firms, markets, relational contracting. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Worren, N., Moore, K., & Cardona, P. (2002). Modularity, strategic flexibility, and firm performance: A study of the home appliance industry. Strategic Management Journal, 23(2), 1123–1140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2003). Case-study research. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.

  • Yoo, Y., Boland, R. J., & Lyytinen, K. (2006). From organization design to organization designing. Organization Science, 17(2), 215–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I wish to thank Steve Barley, Diane Bailey, Pamela Hinds, Tsedal Beyene, Yosem Companys, Andrew Nelson, Benjamin Hallen, and other participants at the WTO Seminar at Stanford University, as well as Arent Greve. The paper benefited also from comments from Antti Ainamo and various participants at SCANCOR Seminar. I am indebted with three anonymous reviewers of JGM. I want to thank Annalisa Tunisini, Maurizio Catino and Marco Canesi for their help in case-studies. For sharing their thoughts with me, I am indebted to Mr. G. Ghilardi, F. Ferraris. R. Cavani and G. Maiocchi (New Holland), Mr. M. Rao, G. Survant, B. Rowe, R. Bandy, G. Olsen and Mrs. J. Blomaberg (Lexmark); Mr. P. Valentini, P. Tarchioni, C. Granuzzo and V. Dominici (Biesse); C. Bassoli and P. Grassi (Cognetex); E. Colombo (Ficep).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Conservatorio 7, 20100, Milan, Italy

    Mario Benassi

Authors
  1. Mario Benassi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mario Benassi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Benassi, M. Investigating modular organizations. J Manag Gov 13, 163–192 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-008-9078-1

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-008-9078-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation