Does Transaction Misalignment Matter for Firm Survival at All Stages of the Industry Life Cycle?

Abstract

Research on industry life cycles suggests that competitive pressures are more severe during the shakeout stage, which could be associated with the emergence of a dominant design, than at other stages. Transaction-cost theory, on the other hand, assumes generally competitive markets and does not address the industry life cycle. It therefore implies that transaction-cost economizing is a superior firm strategy regardless of the stage of the life cycle. This paper seeks to reconcile these two streams of research by investigating whether aligning transactions with governance modes in accordance with transaction-cost prescriptions has a differential effect on firm survival in preshakeout versus shakeout stages of the industry life cycle. Analyzing data from the early U.S. auto industry (1917-1933), we find that while transaction misalignment did not have a significant impact on firm survival during the preshakeout stage or during the period as a whole, it did have a significantly larger negative impact on survival during the shakeout stage than during the preshakeout stage. We also find that the negative effects of misalignment on survival were significantly weaker for larger firms during the shakeout stage. This suggests that applications of transaction-cost theory which assume uniformly severe selection pressures across the industry life cycle and uniform effects of misalignment across firms of different sizes could be misleading. It also suggests that theories of the industry life cycle could usefully take transaction costs into account along with production costs in their analyses of competition over the life cycle.industry life cycle, transaction costs, dominant design, manufacturing, strategy

Value Creation in Innovation Ecosystems: How the Structure of Technological Interdependence Affects Firm Performance in New Technology Generations

“…As such, we argue and find that the benefits derived from vertical integration increase over the course of the technology life cycle. This finding is consistent with recent studies conducted in the context of the automotive industry (Argyres and Bigelow, 2007;Novak and Stern, 2008).…”

“…By linking the flow of activities among partners to the distribution of innovation challenges across the ecosystem we shed light on a key mechanism 8 of joint value creation and contribute to the emerging literature on ecosystem strategy (e.g., Moore, 1996;Iansiti and Levien, 2004;Adner, 2006). Finally, by explicitly considering the changing benefits of vertical integration over the course of the technology lifecycle we contribute towards an understanding of how firm"s boundary choices affect their performance outcomes over time (e.g., Stigler, 1951;Argyres and Bigelow, 2007;Novak and Stern, 2008).…”

Politics and Firm Boundaries: How Organizational Structure, Group Interests, and Resources Affect Outsourcing

“…The ability to make aligned outsourcing decisions may not have loomed large in the design of the organizational structure; nor would failures to achieve alignment have substantially increased the risk of organizational failure. Where make or buy decisions have much greater impact on organization viability, we might expect selection pressures to push organizations towards more aligned outsourcing decisions (Argyres and Bigelow 2007;Nickerson and Silverman 2003), and the ability to make aligned outsourcing decisions would likely figure more prominently in decisions about the allocation of goals and authority.…”

Firm Survival and Industry Evolution in Vertically Related Populations

“…For example, bumpers, fasteners, and sun visors are unlikely to be core supplier industries to the automobile industry because they offer little in the way of substantial differentiation or lower cost to a focal automobile manufacturer relative to other automobile manufacturers. In contrast, transmissions, engines, and onboard electronics all involve specific investments both upstream and downstream and are core component suppliers to the automobile industry that can have large impacts on the differentiation and cost position of the firm and impact firm survival substantially (Argyres andBigelow 2007, Novak andStern 2008). Overall, upstream providers of core components expand the definition of the resource space that organizations access.…”