Design Rules, Volume 2: How Technology Shapes Organizations

Carliss Y. Baldwin

Working Paper | HBS Working Paper Series | 2019

Design Rules, Volume 2: How Technology Shapes Organizations: Chapter 10 Variations on the Theme of Flow Production

Abstract

The purpose of this chapter is to explore how technologies and organizations engaged in flow production evolve over time. To allow for an apples-to-apples comparison, I examine organizations using essentially the same physical technologies, making similar products, and competing in the same markets. Specifically, I look at the organizational differences among the largest automakers in the United States and Japan. I focus first on Ford between 1910 and 1930, then on General Motors from the 1920s through the 1960s, then Toyota (and other Japanese automakers) from the 1960s through 2000. The differences among these organizations show that while technology shapes organizations within broad limits, it does not determine an organization’s complete design nor its long-term competitive success.

Keywords: flow production; Ford; General Motors; competitiveness; Technology; Organizational Design; Production; Auto Industry;

Language: English

Format: Print

33 pages

Read Now

Citation:

Baldwin, Carliss Y. "Design Rules, Volume 2: How Technology Shapes Organizations: Chapter 10 Variations on the Theme of Flow Production." Harvard Business School Working Paper, No. 20-034, September 2019.

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.

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.

Working Paper | HBS Working Paper Series | 2019

Design Rules, Volume 2: How Technology Shapes Organizations: Chapter 13 Platform Systems vs. Step Processes—The Value of Options and the Power of Modularity

Carliss Y. Baldwin

This is the first chapter in Part 3. Its purpose is to contrast the value structure of platform systems with step processes from a technological perspective. I first review the basic technical architecture of computers and argue that every computer is inherently a platform for performing computations as dictated by their programs. I state and prove five propositions about platform systems, which stand in contrast to the propositions derived for step processes in Chapter 8. The propositions suggest that platform systems and step processes call for different forms of organization. Specifically, step processes reward technical integration, unified governance, risk aversion, and the use of direct authority, while platform systems reward modularity, distributed governance, risk taking, and autonomous decision-making. Despite these differences, treating platform systems and step processes as mutually exclusive architectures sets up a false dichotomy. Creating any good requires carrying out a technical recipe, i.e., performing a series of steps. Step processes in turn can be modularized (at the cost of lower efficiency) by creating buffers between steps. I show that the optimal number of modules (and buffers) increases as the underlying rate of technical change goes up. When the underlying technologies are changing rapidly, it makes sense to sacrifice some degree of flow efficiency for options to mix-and-match modular components.

Keywords: platform systems; step processes; computer architecture; modularity; Technology;

Citation:

Baldwin, Carliss Y. "Design Rules, Volume 2: How Technology Shapes Organizations: Chapter 13 Platform Systems vs. Step Processes—The Value of Options and the Power of Modularity." Harvard Business School Working Paper, No. 19-073, January 2019. View Details

Cite View Details SSRN Read Now