The Strength of IT-Based (Virtual) Interfirm Ties in the Development of Complex Product Systems

  • Ikenna S. Uzuegbunam
Part of the Annals of Information Systems book series (AOIS, volume 5)


This chapter examines the value of “virtual embeddedness” in the context of firms that develop complex product systems (CoPS). The development of CoPS usually involves many firms working together. Firms may choose to maintain arms-length relationships with their partners. But often they must coordinate new product development (NPD) through more embedded interactions because of the intricate nature of systems development in CoPS. Although embeddedness can be socially constructed, the rise of Internet and digital technologies have given way to the emergence of a new form of embeddedness – virtual embeddedness, which provides CoPS firms with unprecedented opportunities for learning and scope economies in the process of NPD. Based on a new typology of virtual embeddedness in organizational space, I posit that virtual embeddedness is a good complementary vehicle to modularity in the management of NPD between CoPS firms. Accordingly, I draw some implications for future research.


Product Development Focal Firm Social Embeddedness Network Embeddedness Virtual Connection 
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.


  1. Brusoni, S., Prencipe, A., & 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, 597–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chesbrough, H. (2007). Why companies should have open business models. MIT Sloan Management Review, Winter, 22–28.Google Scholar
  3. Design News. (2007). Boeing’s global collaboration environment pioneers groundbreaking 787 Dreamliner development effort. (
  4. Ethiraj, S. K. (2007). Allocation of inventive effort in complex product systems. Strategic Management Journal, 28(6), 563–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Freeman, C., & Soete, L. (1997). The economics of industrial revolution(3rd ed.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Fowler, S. W., Lawrence, T. B., & Morse E. A. (2004). Virtually embedded ties. Journal of Management, 30(5), 647–666.Google Scholar
  7. Gomes-Casseres, B. (1994). Group versus group: How alliance networks compete. Harvard Business Review, 72, 62–84.Google Scholar
  8. Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360–1380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. The American Journal of Sociology, 91, 481–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gulati, R. (1998). Alliances and networks. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 293–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gulati, R., Nohria, N., & Zaheer, A. (2000). Strategic networks. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 203–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hamel, G., Doz, Y. L., & Prahalad, C. K. (1989). Collaborate with your competitors and win. Harvard Business Review, January–February, 133–139.Google Scholar
  13. Hansen, M. T. (1999). The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Academy of Management Review, 44, 82–111.Google Scholar
  14. Henderson, R. M., & Clark K. (1990). Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 9–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hobday, M. (1998). Product complexity, innovation and industrial organization. Research Policy, 26, 689–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lavie, D. (2006). The competitive advantage of interconnected firms: An extension of the resource based view. Academy of Management Review, 31, 638–658.Google Scholar
  17. Lawrence, T. B., Morse E. A., & Fowler, S. W. (2005). Managing your portfolio of connections. Sloan Management Review, 46(2), 59–65.Google Scholar
  18. Morse, E. A., Fowler, S. W., & Lawrence, T. B. (2007). The Impact of virtual embeddedness on the new venture survival: Overcoming the liabilities of newness. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, March, 139–159.Google Scholar
  19. Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2000). Co-opting customer competence. Harvard Business Review, 78(1), 79–87.Google Scholar
  20. Schilling, M. A. (2000). Toward a general modular systems theory and its application to interfirm product modularity. Academy of Management Review, 25(2), 312–334.Google Scholar
  21. Tichy, N. (1973). An analysis of clique formation and structure in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 18(2), 194–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Uzzi, B. (1996). The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations. American Sociological Review, 61, 674–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Uzzi, B. (1997). Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 35–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Uzzi, B., & Spiro, J. (2005). Collaboration and creativity: The small world problem. American Journal of Sociology, 111(2), 447–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Management, Gatton College of Business & EconomicsUniversity of KentuckyLexingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations