Enabling Globally Distributed Projects: Effects of Project Interface Match and Related Technical Experience

Abstract

Global firms often attempt to utilize modular product architectures to ease the distribution of project work among subsidiaries. However, empirical findings on the effectiveness of this approach are mixed. Seeking to clarify this matter, we investigate the conditions under which modular product platform use is associated with cross‐subsidiary distribution of project work. Through an in‐depth case study of a global corporation, we find that a firm’s ability to leverage modular product platforms for distributing project work is positively associated with project interface match (i.e., the extent to which meeting the requirements of a derivative project does not entail modifications of the interfaces embedded in the firm’s modular product platforms). However, this association is attenuated, and eventually muted, by the project technical manager’s related technical experience (i.e., the manager’s personal experience with the technical solution addressing a focal project’s customer requirements). Such attenuation effect originates because lower levels of project interface match do not necessarily imply greater expected project coordination effort. Such expectation is reduced to the extent that the technical project manager has related technical experience. Triangulation of qualitative insights from four embedded cases with a proprietary database of 97 projects supports our contention. These findings contribute to the literatures on product and organizational modularity, distributed work, and project management.

The design sourcing choice and technological performance in the upscale and downscale markets of an architectural innovation

“…This is potentially because higher requisite technological performance in the upscale market may limit the reusability of the original architectural knowledge. As suggested in the research on interface mismatch (Salvador & Madiedo, 2021), complex and uncertain interdependencies among component designs can occur because the interface among component designs within the original architecture may mismatch with the component design specifics needed for higher technological performance in the upscale market.…”

“…108-128). In other words, the interdependencies among the component designs were largely confined within their established interfaces of the original architecture (Salvador & Madiedo, 2021).…”

“…Accordingly, the recipient firms in these subsequent markets may differ in terms of their need for additional specific investments in design activities. They face different levels of complexity and uncertainty in coordinating and matching the design activities of interdependent components and their interfaces (Salvador & Madiedo, 2021), as well as different degrees of supplier opportunism that may potentially arise (Nickerson & Zenger, 2004). Under these different circumstances across the markets, the impacts of design sourcing choices on the technological performance of the products may vary as well.…”