Where Do Transactions Come From? Modularity, Transactions, and the Boundaries of Firms

Carliss Y. Baldwin

Article | Industrial and Corporate Change | February 2008

Where Do Transactions Come From? Modularity, Transactions, and the Boundaries of Firms

Abstract

This article constructs a theory of the location of transactions and the boundaries of firms in a productive system. It proposes that systems of production can be viewed as networks, in which tasks-cum-agents are the nodes and transfers—of material, energy and information—between tasks and agents are the links. Transactions are defined as mutually agreed-upon transfers with compensation and are located within the task network. Placing a transaction in a particular location in turn requires work to define, count (or measure), and pay for the transacted objects. The costs of this work (labeled mundane transaction costs) are generally low at the thin crossing points of the task network, which correspond to module boundaries. Therefore, transactions are more likely to be located at module boundaries than in their interiors. Several implications arise from this theory. Among these: Modularizations create new module boundaries, hence new transaction locations. Areas in the task network where transfers are dense and complex should be located in transaction-free zones, so that the cost of transacting does not overburden the system. The thin crossing points between transaction-free zones constitute breakpoints, where firms and industries may split apart.

Keywords: Boundaries; Production; Market Transactions; Supply Chain; Management; Cost; Theory; Performance Productivity; Information Management; Complexity;

Format: Print

41 pages

Find at Harvard Read Now

Citation:

Baldwin, Carliss Y. "Where Do Transactions Come From? Modularity, Transactions, and the Boundaries of Firms." Industrial and Corporate Change 17, no. 1 (February 2008): 155–195. (Selected as one of the top twenty articles in the first twenty years of publication, 1992-2011.)

In March 2013, Apple Computer has a very large cash balance, and is under pressure to return cash to shareholders. Hedge fund manager David Einhorn thinks Apple can "unlock value" by issuing perpetual preferred stock, dubbed iPrefs. Henry Blodget, CEO of Business Insider, disagrees, saying "you can't just wave your magic wand and make something of nothing." This short case is designed to support a discussion of "perfect" markets and the Modigliani-Miller capital structure irrelevance propositions. The case focuses on two questions: (1) From a shareholder's perspective, how is Apple's cash different from cash in a bank or money market account? (2) Can Apple create significant value for shareholders by splitting each common share into an iPref plus a common share?

The purpose of this chapter is to investigate the means by which firms capture value in open platform systems. I begin by arguing that the surplus value created by complementarities within a technical system will be split among the owners of the unique and essential components—the strategic bottlenecks in the system. However, most platforms must also execute a series of steps that are subject to “flow production” bottlenecks. Finding and fixing these flow bottlenecks is another way to capture value. In addition, two types of platform improvements provide further opportunities for value capture. “Accelerators” speed up the processing of options, while “subsidiary” platforms increase the range of options available to users. Finally, members of a platform system or new entrants may seek to supplant the owner of a strategic bottleneck by “disintermediating” platform components. I describe four generic methods of disintermediation: substitution, reverse engineering, platform independent complements, and platform envelopment.

The purpose of this chapter is to use the theory of bottlenecks laid out in previous chapters to better understand the dynamics of an open standards-based platform. I describe how the Wintel platform evolved from 1990 through 2000 under joint sponsorship of Intel and Microsoft. I first describe a series of technical bottlenecks that arose in the early 1990s concerning the “bus architecture” of IBM-compatible PCs. Intel’s management of buses demonstrates how, under conditions of distributed supermodular complementarity, a platform sponsor can reconfigure the modular structure of a technical system, property rights within the system, and its own zone of authority to increase system-wide throughput, while protecting its own strategic bottleneck from disintermediation. I go on to describe how Microsoft used platform envelopment to establish a second strategic bottleneck in productivity software and later to respond to the threat of disintermediation from platform-independent internet browsers. I end the chapter by discussing the conditions under which shared platform sponsorship can be a long-term dynamic equilibrium.

Faculty & Research

Where Do Transactions Come From? Modularity, Transactions, and the Boundaries of Firms

Abstract

Citation:

About the Author

More from the Author