The Dual Role of Modularity: Innovation and Imitation
Management Science, Vol. 54, No. 5, pp. 939-955
- 9Citations
- 5,263Usage
- 8Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Paper Description
What 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 elaborate how and why design complexity affects the nature of the trade-off between innovation and imitation deterrence and thereby help address questions about the effective allocation of imitation energies, either for imitating firms to increase the efficacy of their imitation efforts or for innovating firms to effectively deter imitation. We discuss how our analyses shed light on several contemporary examples of innovation and imitation deterrence, such as the emergence of low-cost airlines and the rise of IBM in the mainframe computer industry.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know