The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Allocation of inventive effort in complex product systems
Open accessAbstract
This paper examines the allocation of inventive effort in complex product systems. I argue that complex product systems, e.g., personal computers (PCs), are distinguished by functional interaction among several components, each guided by a relatively autonomous bundle of technical and economic characteristics. I try to explore whether the dynamics of such interactions between components of complex product systems can help us understand changes in the relative allocation of inventive effort. I advance and empirically test three hypotheses: (1) emergence of component constraints (bottlenecks) in product systems will trigger research and development (R&D) investment to resolve the constraints; (2) slack component firms have a strong incentive to invest in resolving component constraints; and (3) the incentive of slack component firms to invest in resolving component constraints is increasing in their prior sunk R&D investments in slack components. In sum, I argue that interactions between components in a product system conditions the R&D incentives of firms and also that the incentives are increasing in their prior investments or capabilities. Using product reviews from technical journals, I trace the constraint components in the PC from 1981 to 1998 and attempt to predict shifts in the allocation of inventive effort in the subsequent period. The empirical results strongly support all three hypotheses. This study highlights the paradoxical effect of modularity in complex product systems. Modular design architectures, while contributing to accelerating the pace of technical change, also tend to limit the economic benefits of firms' component R&D efforts, especially when different components technologies are progressing at different rates. This often creates an impetus to enlarge the scope of firm R&D activities beyond the component product markets that firms operate in. Other implications for R&D decision making are discussed. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Design Rules: The Power of Modularity
Baldwin, C. Y., & Clark, K. B. (2000) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/2366.001.0001 · Cited by 3,504
Localization of Knowledge and the Mobility of Engineers in Regional Networks
Almeida, P., & Kogut, B. (1999) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.45.7.905 · Cited by 2,565
Aging, Obsolescence, and Organizational Innovation
Sørensen, J. B., & Stuart, T. E. (2000) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2666980 · Cited by 1,862
Cited by
How firms navigate cooperation and competition in nascent ecosystems
Hannah, D. P., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2018) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.2750 · Cited by 692
Ecosystems: broadening the locus of value creation
Kapoor, R. (2018) · Journal of Organization Design · doi:10.1186/s41469-018-0035-4 · Cited by 504
Adner, R., & Kapoor, R. (2009) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.1353582 · Cited by 334
Jacobides, M. G., Cennamo, C., & Gawer, A. (2024) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2023.104906 · Cited by 220
From product system to ecosystem: How firms adapt to provide an integrated value proposition
Stonig, J., Schmid, T., & Müller‐Stewens, G. (2022) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.3390 · Cited by 150
Metadata
- Authors
- Ethiraj, S. K.
- Venue
- Strategic Management Journal
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2007-03-16
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 563-584
- ISSN
- 0143-2095 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0266
- OpenAlex
- W2091175419
- Cited by
- 175
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 10.77
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Allocation of inventive effort in complex product systems. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/smj.622
- The paper
- Ethiraj, S. K. (2007). Allocation of inventive effort in complex product systems. Strategic Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.622
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.