Advertisement

Journal of Management & Governance

, Volume 1, Issue 1, pp 123–140 | Cite as

Division of Labour and the Locus of Inventive Activity

  • Ashish Arora
  • Alfonso Gambardella
  • Enzo Rullani
Article

Abstract

This paper argues that modularity of knowledge andtechnologies has important implications for the locusof inventive activities. This is because modularityallows for a separation of the innovation process intwo main activities: The production of basic(standardised) modules, and their combination toproduce variants of technologies or product designsthat are better suited to the special needs ofindividual users or markets. This gives rise to adivision of labour whereby the production of moduleswill be performed by specialised upstream suppliers(who enjoy economies of scale), while the combinationof modules will be performed by firms furtherdownstream or by the users themselves. We then suggestthat this pattern can explain a variety of phenomenasuch as why users ’’co-produce‘‘ their innovations, andhow small regions can support innovative activitydespite the apparent efficiency advantage of largerregions.

Keywords

Transportation Cost Inventive Activity Basic Module Technological Integration Large Market 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anand, B. & Khanna, T. (1997). Intellectual Property Rights and Contract Structure, Harvard Business School, Working Paper 97 #106.Google Scholar
  2. Amin, A. (1993). The Globalization of the Economy: An Erosion of Regional Networks? In Grabher, G. (ed.) The Embedded Firm: On Socioeconomics of Industrial Networks. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Amin, A. & Robins, K. (1990). Industrial Districts and Regional Development: Limits and Possibilities. In Pyke, F., Becattini, G. & Sengenberger, W. (eds.) Industrial Districts and Interfirm Cooperation in Italy. Geneva: International Institute for Labour Studies.Google Scholar
  4. Arora, A. (1997). Patents, Licensing, and Market Structure in Chemicals, forthcoming, Research Policy.Google Scholar
  5. Arora, A. & Gambardella, A. (1994). The Changing Technology of Technical Change: General and Abstract Knowledge and the Division of Innovative Labour. Research Policy 23(5): 523–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Arora, A. & Gambardella, A. (1996). Evolution of Industry Structure in the Chemical Industry. Working Paper N. 465, Center for Economic Policy Research, Stanford University, Stanford CA.Google Scholar
  7. Cusumano, M. (1991). Japan's Software Factories. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Di Bernardo, B. & Rullani, E. (1990). Il Management e le Macchine. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
  9. Frosch, R.A. (1996). The Customer for R&D is Always Wrong. Research Technology Management, November-December, pp. 22–26.Google Scholar
  10. Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic Action and Social Structure. The Problem of Embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology 91(3): 481–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hofman, D.J. & Rockart, J.F. (1994). Application Templates: Faster, Better, and Cheaper Systems. Sloan Management Review Fall: 49–60.Google Scholar
  12. Langlois, R.N. & Robertson, P.L. (1992). Networks and Innovation in a Modular System: Lessons from the Microcomputer and Stereo Component Industries. Research Policy 21: 297–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Levitt, C. (1983). The Globalization of Markets. Harvard Business Review May–June: 92–102.Google Scholar
  14. McGrath, M.E. & Hoole, R.W. (1992). Manufacturing's New Economies of Scale. Harvard Business Review May–June: 94–102.Google Scholar
  15. Nelson, R. (1959). The Simple Economics of Basic Scientific Research. Journal of Political Economy 67: 297–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Norman, R. & Ramirez, R. (1993). From Value Chain to Value Constellation: Designing Interactive Strategies. Harvard Business Review July–August: 65–77.Google Scholar
  17. Pine, J.B. (1993). Mass Customization. Boston MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  18. Pine, J.B., Victor, B. & Boynton, A. (1993). Making Mass Customization Work. Harvard Business Review September–October: 108–119.Google Scholar
  19. Romer, P. (1990). Endogenous Technological Change. Journal of Political Economy 98(5): S71–S102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sanchez, R. & Mahoney, J.T. (1995). Modularity, Flexibility, and Knowledge Management in Product and Organization Design. Working Paper N.95-0121, College of Commerce and Business Administration, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
  21. von Hippel, E. (1990). Task Partitioning: An Innovation Process Variable. Research Policy 19: 407–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. von Hippel, E. (1994). ‘Sticky Information’ and the Locus of Problem Solving: Implications for Innovation. Management Science 40(4): 429–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Womack, J.P, Jones, D.T. & Roos, D. (1990). The Machine that Changed the World. New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ashish Arora
    • 1
  • Alfonso Gambardella
    • 2
  • Enzo Rullani
    • 3
  1. 1.Heinz SchoolCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburgh
  2. 2.Istituto di Studi AziendaliUniversity of UrbinoUrbinoItaly
  3. 3.Dipartimento di Economia AziendaleUniversity of VeniceVeniceItaly

Personalised recommendations