Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Strategic Management pp 47–50Cite as

Palgrave Macmillan

Architectural Competences

  • Reference work entry
  • First Online:

  • 208 Accesses

Abstract

The construct of architectural competence emerged in the early 1990s in works focusing on technological change (in this article we use the term competence and capabilities interchangeably). Architectural competences have had a profound impact on our understanding of the relationship between organizations and innovation and, more precisely, on the causes of subtle failures that might occur in incumbent firms. These works have also contributed to the emergence and/or development of a number of constructs and frames of strategy and innovation, including integrative capabilities, disruptive innovation and modular architectures. We shall touch on these issues and conclude with some critical remarks.

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

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   1,099.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   1,699.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  • Abernathy, W.J., and J.M. Utterback. 1978. Patterns of industrial innovation. Technology Review 80: 40–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, P., and M. Tushman. 1990. Technological discontinuities and dominant designs: A cyclical model of technological change. Administrative Science Quarterly 35: 604–633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin, C.Y., and K.B. Clark. 2000. Design rules, 1: The power of modularity. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brusoni, S., A. Prencipe, and K. Pavitt. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, C.M. 1997. The innovator’s dilemma. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, C.M. 2006. The ongoing process of building a theory of disruption. Journal of Product Innovation Management 23: 39–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, C.M., and J.L. Bower. 1996. Customer power, strategic investment, and the failure of leading firms. Strategic Management Journal 17: 197–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, R., and K.B. Clark. 1990. Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existing systems and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly 35: 9–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, R., and I. Cockburn. 1994. Measuring competence? Exploring firm effects in pharmaceutical research. Strategic Management Journal 15: 63–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iansiti, M., and K. Clark. 1994. Integration and dynamic capability: Evidence from product development. Industrial and Corporate Change 3: 557–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leonard-Barton, D. 1992. Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal 13: 111–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg, N. 1982. Inside the black box: Technology and economics. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

    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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter, J. 1942. Capitalism, socialism, and democracy. New York: Harper & Brothers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, W., and M. Tushman. 2005. Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science 16: 522–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tushman, M., and P. Anderson. 1986. Technological discontinuities and organizational environments. Administrative Science Quarterly 31: 439–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tushman, M., and E. Romanelli. 1985. Organizational evolution: A metamorphosis model of convergence and reorientation. Research in Organizational Behavior 7: 171–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Utterback, J. 1994. Mastering the dynamics of innovation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verona, G. 1999. A resource-based view of product development. Academy of Management Review 24: 132–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Bocconi University, Milan, Italy

    Gianmario Verona

Authors
  1. Gianmario Verona
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gianmario Verona .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. GSBPP, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA, USA

    Mie Augier

  2. Berkeley Research Group, LLC, Emeryville, CA, USA

    David J. Teece

  3. Haas School of Business, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA

    David J. Teece

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Verona, G. (2018). Architectural Competences. In: Augier, M., Teece, D.J. (eds) The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Strategic Management. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-00772-8_330

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation