Journal of Information Technology

, Volume 29, Issue 1, pp 27–43 | Cite as

Managing technological change in the digital age: the role of architectural frames

Research article
First Online:

Abstract

Inspired by Herbert Simon’s notion of nearly decomposable systems, researchers have examined modularity as a powerful approach to manage technological change in product innovation. We articulate this approach as the hierarchy-of-parts architecture and explain how it emphasizes decomposition of a design into loosely coupled parts and subsequent aggregation of these into an industrial product. To realize the scale benefits of modularity, firms successively freeze design specifications before production and therefore only allow limited windows of functionality design and redesign. This makes it difficult to take advantage of the increased speed by which digitized products can be developed and modified. To address this problem, we draw on Christopher Alexander’s notion of design patterns to introduce a complementary approach to manage technological change that is resilient to digital technology. We articulate this approach as the network-of-patterns architecture and explain how it emphasizes generalization of ideas into patterns and subsequent specialization of patterns for different design purposes. In response to the increased digitization of industrial products, we demonstrate the value of complementing hierarchy-of-parts thinking with network-of-patterns thinking through a case study of infotainment architecture at an automaker. As a result, we contribute to the literature on managing products in the digital age: we highlight the properties of digital technology that increase the speed by which digitized products can be redesigned; we offer the notion of architectural frames and propose hierarchy-of-parts and network-of-patterns as frames to support innovation of digitized products; and, we outline an agenda for future research that reconsiders the work of Simon and Alexander as well as their followers to address key challenges in innovating digitized products.

Keywords

architectural frames digitalization modularity technological change hierarchy-of-parts network-of-patterns 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Alexander, C. (1964). Notes on the Synthesis of Form, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Alexander, C. (1966). A City is Not a Tree, Design 206 (February): 46–55.Google Scholar
  3. Alexander, C. (1979). The Timeless Way of Building, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Alexander, C. (1999). The Origins of Pattern Theory: The future of the theory, and the generation of a living world, IEEE Software 16 (5): 71–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., Silverstein, M., Jacobson, M., Fiksdahl King, I. and Angel, S. (1977). A Pattern Language: Towns, buildings, construction, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Anderson, P. and Tushman, M.L. (1990). Technological Discontinuities and Dominant Designs: A cyclical model of technological change, Administrative Science Quarterly 34 (4): 604–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Argyres, N. and Bigelow, L. (2010). Innovation, Modularity, and Vertical Deintegration: Evidence from the early US auto industry, Organization Science 21 (4): 842–853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Arthur, W.B. (1996). Increasing Returns and the New World of Business, Harvard Business Review 74 (4): 100–109.Google Scholar
  9. Arthur, W.B. (2009). The Nature of Technology: What it is and how it evolves, New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  10. Baldwin, C.Y. (2008). Where Do Transactions Come From? Modularity, transactions, and the boundaries of firms, Industrial and Corporate Change 17 (1): 155–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Baldwin, C.Y. and Clark, K.B. (2000). Design Rules – The Power of Modularity, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. Baldwin, C.Y. and von Hippel, E. (2011). Modeling a Paradigm Shift: From produce innovation to user and open collaborative innovation, Organization Science 22 (6): 1399–1417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Baldwin, C.Y. and Woodard, C.J. (2009). The Architecture of Platforms: A unified view, in A. Gawer (ed.) Platforms, Markets and Innovation, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  14. Benkler, Y. (2006). The Wealth of Networks: How social production transforms markets and freedom, New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Benner, M. (2007). The Incumbent Discount: Stock market categories and response to radical technological change, Academy of Management Review 32 (3): 703–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Benner, M. (2010). Securities Analysts and Incumbent Response to Radical Technological Change: Evidence from digital photography and internet telephony, Organization Science 21 (1): 42–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bergin, T.J. and Gibson, R.G. (eds.) (1996). History of Programming Languages – II, New York, NY: ACM Press and Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  18. Boudreau, K.J. (2012). Let a Thousand Flowers Bloom? An early look at large numbers of software ‘apps’ developers and patterns of innovation, Organization Science 23 (5): 1409–1427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Brusoni, S., Prencipe, A. and 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 (4): 597–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Chandler, A.D. (1977). The Visible Hand: The managerial revolution in American business, Cambridge, MA and London, England: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Chandler, A.D. (1990). Scale and Scope: The dynamics of industrial capitalism, Cambridge, MA and London, England: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  23. Christensen, J.F. (2006). Whither Core Competency for the Large Corporation in an Open Innovation World? in: H. Chesbrough, W. Vanhaverbeke and J. West (eds.) Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 35–61.Google Scholar
  24. Clark, K.B. (1985). The Interaction of Design Hierarchies and Market Concepts in Technological Evolution, Research Policy 14 (5): 235–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Cusumano, M. and Gawer, A. (2002). The Elements of Platform Leadership, Sloan Management Review 43 (3): 51–58.Google Scholar
  26. Davidson, E. (2002). Technology Frames and Framing: A socio-cognitive investigation of requirements determination, MIS Quarterly 26 (4): 329–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. de Boer, G., Engel, P. and Praefcke, W. (2005). Generic Remote Software Update for Vehicle ECUs Using a Telematics Device as a Gateway, in J. Valldorf and W. Gessner (eds.) Advanced Microsystems for Automotive Applications, Berlin, Germany: Springer, pp. 371–380.Google Scholar
  28. Eaton, B., Elaluf-Calderwood, S., Sørensen, C. and Yoo, Y. (2011). Structures of Control and Generativity in Digital Ecosystem Service Innovation: The cases of the Apple and Google Mobile App Stores. Working paper series of the Department of Management, London School of Economics and Political Science (183).Google Scholar
  29. Fine, C.H. (1998). Clockspeed: Winning industry control in the age of temporary advantage, Reading, MA: Perseus Books.Google Scholar
  30. Gabriel, R.P. (1996). Patterns of Software: Tales from the software community, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Gamma, E., Helm, R., Johnson, R. and Vlissides, J. (1995). Design Patterns: Elements of reusable object-oriented software, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, Reading.Google Scholar
  32. Grabow, S. (1983). Christopher Alexander: The search for a new paradigm in architecture, Stocksfield, MA: Oriel Press.Google Scholar
  33. Garud, R. and Kumaraswamy, A. (1995). Technological and Organizational Designs for Realizing Economics of Substitution, Strategic Management Journal 16 (Summer): 93–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Garud, R., Kumaraswamy, A. and Langlois, R.N. (eds.) (2003). Managing in the Modular Age: Architectures, networks, and organizations, Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  35. Gawer, A. (ed.) (2009). Platforms, Markets, and Innovation, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ghazawneh, A. and Henfridsson, O. (2013). Balancing Platform Control and External Contribution in Third-Party Development: The boundary resources model, Information Systems Journal 23 (2): 173–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Gioia, D.A. (1986). Symbols, Scripts, and Sensemaking Creating Meaning in the Organizational Experience, in H.P. Sims and D.A. Gioia (eds.) The Thinking Organization: Dynamics of organizational social cognition, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, pp. 49–74.Google Scholar
  38. Hanseth, O. and Lyytinen, K. (2010). Design Theory for Dynamic Complexity in Information Infrastructures: The case of building internet, Journal of Information Technology 25 (1): 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Henderson, R.M. and Clark, K.B. (1990). Architectural Innovation: The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms, Administrative Science Quarterly 35 (1): 9–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Henfridsson, O. and Bygstad, B. (2013). The Generative Mechanisms of Digital Infrastructure Evolution, MIS Quarterly 37 (3): 907–931.Google Scholar
  41. Henfridsson, O. and Yoo, Y. (2013). The Liminality of Trajectory Shifts in Institutional Entrepreneurship, Organization Science, http://dx.org/10.1287/orsc.2013.0883.
  42. Hobday, M. (1998). Product Complexity, Innovation, and Industrial Organization, Research Policy 26 (6): 689–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Iansiti, M. (1995). Technology Integration: Managing technological evolution in a complex environment, Research Policy 24 (4): 521–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Jonsson, K. (2010). Digitalized Industrial Equipment: An investigation of remote diagnostic services, Doctoral Dissertation, Umeå University, Umeå.Google Scholar
  45. Jonsson, K., Westergren, U.H. and Holmström, J. (2008). Technologies for Value Creation: An exploration of remote diagnostics systems in the manufacturing industry, Information Systems Journal 18 (3): 227–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kallinikos, J., Aaltonen, A. and Marton, A. (2013). The Ambivalent Ontology of Digital Artifacts, MIS Quarterly 37 (2): 357–370.Google Scholar
  47. Kaplan, S. and Tripsas, M. (2008). Thinking about Technology: Applying a cognitive lens to technical change, Research Policy 37 (5): 790–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Knoke, D. and Yang, S. (2008). Social Network Analysis, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Langlois, R.N. (2002). Computers and Semiconductors, in B. Steil, D.G. Victor and R.R. Nelson (eds.) Technological Innovation and Economic Performance, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 265–284.Google Scholar
  50. Langlois, R.N. (2003). The Vanishing Hand: The changing dynamics of industrial capitalism, Industrial and Corporate Change 12 (2): 351–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Langlois, R.N. (2006). The Secret Life of Mundane Transaction Costs, Organization Studies 27 (9): 1389–1410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Langlois, R.N. (2007). The Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism: Schumpeter, chandler, and the new economy, London and New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Langlois, R.N. and Robertson, P.L. (1992). Networks and Innovation in a Modular System: Lessons from the microcomputer and stereo component industries, Research Policy 21 (4): 297–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lee, J. and Berente, N. (2012). Digital Innovation and the Division of Innovative Labor: Digital controls in the automotive industry, Organization Science 23 (5): 1428–1447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Lindgren, R., Andersson, M. and Henfridsson, O. (2008). Multi-Contextuality in Boundary-Spanning Practices, Information Systems Journal 18 (5): 641–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Lopreato, J. and Alston, L. (1970). Ideal Types and the Idealization Strategy, American Sociological Review 35 (1): 88–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Lucas, H.C. and Goh, J.M. (2009). Disruptive Technology: How kodak missed the digital photography revolution, Journal of Strategic Information Systems 18 (1): 46–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. March, J.G. and Olsen, J.P. (1976). Ambiguity and Choice in Organizations, Bergen: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
  59. Mathiassen, L., Munk-Madsen, A., Nielsen, P.A. and Stage, J. (2000). Object Oriented Analysis and Design, Denmark: Marko Publishing, Aalborg.Google Scholar
  60. Mehaffy, M.W. (2007). Notes on the Genesis of Wholes: Christopher Alexander and his continuing influence, Urban Design International 12 (1): 41–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Muffatto, M. and Roveda, M. (2000). Developing Product Platforms: Analysis of the development process, Technovation 20 (11): 617–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Murmann, J.P. and Frenken, K. (2006). Toward a Systematic Framework for Research on Dominant Designs, Technological Innovations, and Industrial change, Research Policy 35 (7): 925–952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Nelson, R.R. and Winter, S.G. (1982). An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Ohlsson, S. and Lehtinen, E. (1997). Abstraction and the Acquisition of Complex Ideas, Journal of Educational Research 27 (1): 37–48.Google Scholar
  65. Orlikowski, W.J. and Gash, D.C. (1994). Technological Frames: Making sense of information technology in organizations, ACM Transactions on Information Systems 12 (2): 174–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Parnas, D.L. (1972). On the Criteria to be Used in Decomposing Systems into Modules, Communications of the ACM 15 (12): 1053–1058.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Prencipe, A. (2000). Breadth and Depth of Technological Capabilities in CoPS: The case of the aircraft engine control system, Research Policy 29 (7–8): 895–911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Robertson, D. and Ulrich, K. (1998). Planning for Product Platforms, Sloan Management Review 39 (4): 19–31.Google Scholar
  69. Sanchez, R. (1995). Strategic Flexibility in Product Competition, Strategic Management Journal 16 (Summer): 135–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Sanchez, R. and Mahoney, J.T. (1996). Modularity, Flexibility, and Knowledge Management in Product and Organization Design, Strategic Management Journal 17 (Winter): 63–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Schilling, M.A. (2000). Towards a General Modular Systems Theory and its Application to Interfirm Product Modularity, Academy of Management Review 25 (2): 312–334.Google Scholar
  72. Schumpeter, J.A. (1934). The Theory of Economic Development, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  73. Selander, L., Henfridsson, O. and Svahn, F. (2013). Capability Search and Redeem Across Digital Ecosystems, Journal of Information Technology 28 (3): 183–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Shalloway, A. and Trott, J.R. (2005). Design Patterns Explained: A new perspective on object-oriented design, Boston: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  75. Shapiro, C. and Varian, H.R. (1999). Information Rules – A strategic guide to the network economy, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  76. Simon, H.A. (1962). The Architecture of Complexity, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 106 (6): 467–482.Google Scholar
  77. Simon, H.A. (1996). The Sciences of the Artificial, 3rd edn, Cambridge, MA and London, England: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  78. Simon, H.A. (2002). Near Decomposability and the Speed of Evolution, Industrial and Corporate Change 11 (3): 587–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Sosa, M.E., Eppinger, S.D. and Rowles, C.M. (2004). The Misalignment of Product Architecture and Organizational Structure in Complex Product Development, Management Science 50 (12): 1674–1689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory, 2nd edn, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  81. Sturgeon, T.J. (2002). Modular Production Networks: A new American model of industrial organization, Industrial and Corporate Change 11 (3): 451–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Svahn, F. (2012). Digital Product Innovation: Building generative capability through architectural frames, Doctoral Thesis, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.Google Scholar
  83. Takeishi, A. and Fujimoto, T. (2003). Modularization in the Car Industry: Interlinked hierarchies of product, production, and supplier systems, in A. Prencipe, A. Davies and M. Hobday (eds.) The Business of Systems Integration. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp 254–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Tilson, D., Lyytinen, K. and Sørensen, C. (2010). Digital Infrastructures: The missing is research agenda, Information Systems Research 21 (4): 748–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Tiwana, A., Konsynski, B. and Bush, A.A. (2010). Platform Evolution: Coevolution of platform architecture, governance, and environmental dynamics, Information Systems Research 21 (4): 685–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Tripsas, M. (2009). Technology, Identity, and Inertia through the Lens of ‘The Digital Photography Company’, Organization Science 20 (2): 441–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Tripsas, M. and Gavetti, G. (2000). Capabilities, Cognition, and Inertia: Evidence from digital imaging, Strategic Management Journal 21 (10–11): 1147–1161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Ulrich, K. (1995). The Role of Product Architecture in the Manufacturing Firm, Research Policy 24 (3): 419–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Ulrich, K.T. and Eppinger, S.D. (2003). Product Design and Development, 3rd edn, Boston: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  90. Verganti, R. (2009). Design-Driven Innovation: Changing the rules of competition by radically innovating what things mean, Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.Google Scholar
  91. Von Hippel, E. (1990). Task Partitioning: An innovation process variable, Research Policy 19 (5): 407–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing Innovation, Cambridge, MA/London, England: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  93. Weber, M. (1949). The Methodology of the Social Sciences, Glencoe, IL: Free Press.Google Scholar
  94. Weick, K.E. (1979). The Social Psychology of Organizing, 2nd edn, New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  95. Wilson, D. (1969). Forms of Hierarchy: A selected bibliography, in L.L. Whyte, A.G. Wilson and D. Wilson (eds.) Hierarchical Structures, New York: American Elsevier, pp. 287–314.Google Scholar
  96. Yoo, Y. (2010). Computing in Everyday Life: A call for research on experiential computing, MIS Quarterly 34 (2): 213–231.Google Scholar
  97. Yoo, Y., Henfridsson, O. and Lyytinen, K. (2010). The New Organizing Logic of Digital Innovation: An agenda for information systems research, Information Systems Research 21 (4): 724–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Zittrain, J.L. (2006). The Generative Internet, Harvard Law Review 119 (7): 1974–2040.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Information Technology Trust 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ola Henfridsson
    • 1
  • Lars Mathiassen
    • 2
  • Fredrik Svahn
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.University of WarwickCoventryUK
  2. 2.Georgia State UniversityAtlantaUSA
  3. 3.Chalmers University of TechnologyGöteborgSweden
  4. 4.Viktoria Swedish ICTGöteborgSweden

Personalised recommendations