Recent years have witnessed a surge of interest in the notion of capabilities as an important source of competitive advantage. This recognition has, in turn, placed emphasis on the question of where and how these capabilities emerge and how they influence firm performance. The present paper is an attempt to address this question. Using a large sample of detailed project-level data from a leading firm in the global software services industry, we attempt to empirically study the importance of capabilities. We find that two broad classes of capabilities are significant. The first class, which we label client-specific capabilities, is a function of repeated interactions with clients over time and across different projects. This learning from repeated interactions with a given client reduces project execution costs and helps improve project contribution. The second class, termed project management capabilities, is acquired through deliberate and persistent investments in infrastructure and systems to improve the firm's software development process. Our empirical results suggest that the marginal returns to acquiring different capabilities may be different and an understanding of such trade-offs can improve firm decisions to improve and/or acquire such capabilities. We discuss the key contributions of our paper and the implications for future research on capabilities.

The problem of designing, coordinating, and managing complex systems has been central to the management and organizations literature. Recent writings have tended to offer modularity as, at least, a partial solution to this design problem. However, little attention has been paid to the problem of identifying what constitutes an appropriate modularization of a complex system. We develop a formal simulation model that allows us to carefully examine the dynamics of innovation and performance in complex systems. The model points to the trade-off between the destabilizing effects of overly refined modularization and the modest levels of search and a premature fixation on inferior designs that can result from excessive levels of integration. The analysis highlights an asymmetry in this trade-off, with excessively refined modules leading to cycling behavior and a lack of performance improvement. We discuss the implications of these arguments for product and organization design.

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. We thank Jan Rivkin, Nicolaj Siggelkow, Linda Argote, the Associate Editor, and three anonymous reviewers for detailed and helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper. Errors and omissions remain our own. Terms of use: Documents in 2 Modularity and Innovation in Complex Systems AbstractThe problem of designing, coordinating, and managing complex systems has been central to the management and organizations literature. Recent writings have tended to offer modularity as, at least, a partial solution to this design problem. However, little attention has been paid to the problem of identifying what constitutes an appropriate modularization of a complex system. We develop a formal simulation model that allows us to carefully examine the dynamics of innovation and performance in complex systems. The model points to the trade-off between the destabilizing effects of overly refined modularization and the modest levels of search and a premature fixation on inferior designs that can result from excessive levels of integration. The analysis highlights an asymmetry in this trade-off, with excessively refined modules leading to cycling behavior and a lack of performance improvement. We discuss the implications of these arguments for product and organization design.

Modularity has been heralded as an organizational and technical architecture that enhances incremental and modular innovation. Less attention has been paid to the possible implications of modular architectures for imitation. To understand the implications of modular designs for competitive advantage, one must consider the dual impact of modularity on innovation and imitation jointly. In an attempt to do so, we set up three alternative structures that vary in the extent of modularity and hence in the extent of design complexity: nonmodular, modular, and nearly modular designs. In each structure, we examine the trade-offs between innovation benefits and imitation deterrence. The results of our computational experiments indicate that modularization enables performance gains through innovation but, at the same time, sets the stage for those gains to be eroded through imitation. In contrast, performance differences between the leaders and imitators persist in the nearly modular and the nonmodular structures. Overall, we find that design complexity poses a significant trade-off between innovation benefits (i.e., generating superior strategies that create performance differences) and imitation deterrence (i.e., preserving the performance differences). We also examine the robustness of our results to variations in imitation accuracy. In addition to documenting the overall robustness of our principal finding, the ancillary analyses provide a more nuanced rendering of the relationship between the architecture of complexity and imitation efforts. examples in the Auto Industry, both of which sowed the seeds for this paper. We owe a special thanks to the Associate Editor and the two anonymous reviewers who provided extraordinarily detailed and informed set of comments that improved the quality of this paper. We also thank Carliss Baldwin for her thoughtful and provocative feedback on this research. The first author thanks the Michael R. and Mary Kay Hallman fellowship at the University of Michigan for financial support. We are solely responsible for all errors and omissions. 1Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=978293 Electronic copy of this paper is available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=978293 Management Insight StatementWhat makes competitive advantage enduring and prevents its imitation is a central question in strategy research. In this paper, we investigate how and why complexity deters imitation efforts. We argue that design complexity captures the ease of making localized changes without affecting the whole organization. Based on this idea of complexity we identify three organizational structural types: fully modular, nearly modular and non-modular. The three designs differ in the extent to which they encapsulate interdependencies. We show that the potential for incremental innovation in an organization increases when one moves from non-modular to modular structures. In contrast, the potential for an organization to deter imitation decreases from non-modular to modular structures. We elabor...