IP Modularity: Profiting from Innovation by Aligning Product Architecture with Intellectual Property

Joachim  Henkel; Carliss Y. Baldwin; Willy C.  Shih

Article | California Management Review | Summer 2013

IP Modularity: Profiting from Innovation by Aligning Product Architecture with Intellectual Property

by Joachim Henkel, Carliss Y. Baldwin and Willy C. Shih

Abstract

Firms seeking to take advantage of distributed innovation and outsourcing can bridge the tension between value creation and value capture by modifying the modular structure of their technical systems. Specifically, this article introduces the concept of "IP modularity," which seeks to protect and capture value from intellectual property. The article defines what it means for a system to be "IP-modular," illustrates the application of this concept in a number of practical situations, and presents a comprehensive framework that can be used to design and evaluate value capture strategies for modular systems.

Keywords: modularity; value appropriation; distributed innovation; open innovation; intellectual property; Innovation Strategy; Intellectual Property; Value;

Format: Print

Find at Harvard

Citation:

Henkel, Joachim, Carliss Y. Baldwin, and Willy C. Shih. "IP Modularity: Profiting from Innovation by Aligning Product Architecture with Intellectual Property." California Management Review 55, no. 4 (Summer 2013): 65–82.

This case examines four Special Economic Zones in Myanmar. While the country's development had been hobbled by a complex history of military rule, ethnic conflict, and international sanctions, as it pursued liberalization it sought avenues to developing its economy. The four zones described in the case – Dawei, Kyaukphyu, Thilawa, and the New Yangon City project all had different roots and different motivations. The different rates of progress of each reflected the interests and approaches of each of the projects' participants.

Working Paper | HBS Working Paper Series | 2019

Design Rules, Volume 2: How Technology Shapes Organizations: Chapter 8 Rationalizing Flow Processes

Carliss Y. Baldwin

The purpose of this chapter is to examine the value structure of flow production processes and to explain why it is necessary to rationalize flow processes using the tools of systematic management. I first explain the problems facing managers of multi-step flow production processes at the end of the 19th Century. I introduce a model of the value structure of a production process made up of interdependent steps and define the production bottleneck of the process. I use the mathematical definition of a bottleneck to derive two general properties of stochastic multi-step flow processes with bottlenecks. These properties imply a need for ongoing managerial oversight and intervention using a set of tools that went by the label systematic management. Without active systematic management to address production bottlenecks, large-scale flow processes can easily collapse into chaos. I then argue that that the use of automated machinery, larger (or growing) markets, and systematic management are supermodular complements: each attribute makes the other two more valuable. The next chapter will explore how the technological requirements of multi-step flow production processes affect the optimal design of organizations implementing these technologies.

Keywords: flow processes; bottleneck; systematic management; Production; Management; Problems and Challenges;

Citation:

Baldwin, Carliss Y. "Design Rules, Volume 2: How Technology Shapes Organizations: Chapter 8 Rationalizing Flow Processes." Harvard Business School Working Paper, No. 20-032, September 2019. View Details

Cite View Details Read Now

The purpose of this chapter is to explain what the technologies of flow production with stochastic bottlenecks require and reward in organizations. I argue that organizations successfully implementing these technologies are likely to have unified governance and exercise direct authority over process design, job definitions, and task assignments. As they come to employ more people, they will create hierarchical management structures as a means of managing information flows and delegating decision rights. Finally from the early 20th Century through the present, most of these organizations saw advantage in being legally organized as corporations, which could own assets, enter into contracts, and employ individuals in their own right. The result was a “paradigm” of mass production—a cluster of concepts that came to define both “big business” and “high technology” in the United States and elsewhere. Throughout the middle years of the 20th Century, many members of society took for granted the fact that successful businesses using advanced technology would be organized as large, vertically integrated corporations, exercise direct authority, and use managerial hierarchies to channel information and delegate responsibility.

Faculty & Research

IP Modularity: Profiting from Innovation by Aligning Product Architecture with Intellectual Property

Abstract

Citation:

About the Authors

More from these Authors