Who changes what, when and where? Elaborating postponement when integrating hardware and software objects in global supply chains

Abstract

PurposeThe postponement principle concerns defining when and where value is added, usually referring to hardware components for physical products. However, in modern supply chains, software’s importance is increasing, impacting the timing and location of value-adding operations. Lacking insights into software-driven implications for postponement, we aim at elaborating on the postponement principle by contextualizing its evolution when integrating different objects (i.e. hardware and software).Design/methodology/approachWe adopted an abductive approach to elaborate on the existing knowledge with original empirical insights. A single-case study with four subcases allowed us to explore postponement dimensions in the context of a global high-tech enterprise offering products that integrate hardware and software objects. As global supply chains involve multiple jurisdictions with heterogeneous regulations, we also analyzed in depth the emerging fiscal and legal implications.FindingsBesides where and when value is added, the study illustrates that deciding who (i.e. what legal entity) is carrying out what operation on what kind of object is highly important. Moreover, fiscal and legal implications for the various legal entities strongly depend on what operations are executed and in which jurisdiction (where). The study identifies critical interrelationships among postponement dimensions when integrating hardware and software objects, highlighting the importance of understanding and managing their reciprocity with the emerging fiscal and legal risks.Originality/valueWe elaborate on the postponement principle by contextualizing its applications when integrating hardware and software objects in global supply chains, which include multiple jurisdictions. By formalizing the impact of the who dimension, the study contributes to developing the interorganizational perspective for postponement. Moreover, it extends the traditional cost perspective for postponement beyond the trade-off between responsiveness and cost-efficiency, suggesting that firms applying global postponement should extend their focus to also examine fiscal and legal risks for all the legal entities involved.