The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Designing the Boundaries of the Firm: From “Make, Buy, or Ally” to the Dynamic Benefits of Vertical Architecture
Open accessAbstract
The concept of “vertical architecture” defines the scope of a firm and the extent to which it is open to final and intermediate markets; it describes the configurations of transactional choices along a firm’s value chain. A firm can make or buy inputs, and transfer outputs downstream or sell them. Permeable vertical architectures are partly integrated and partly open to the markets along a firm’s value chain. Increased permeability enables more effective use of resources and capacities, better matching of capabilities with market needs, and benchmarking to improve efficiency. Partial integration promotes a more dynamic, open innovation platform and enhances strategic capabilities by linking key parts of the value chain. This permeable vertical architecture, accompanied by appropriate transfer prices and incentive design, facilitates resource allocation and guides a firm’s growth process. Our longitudinal study of a major European manufacturer suggests that to understand how firm boundaries are set and what their impacts are, we need to complement the microanalytic focus on transactions with a systemic analysis at the level of the firm. It also shows how, over and above transactional alignment, decisions about boundaries and vertical architectures can transform a firm’s strategic and productive capabilities and prospects.
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
Coase, R. H. (1937) · Economica · doi:10.1111/j.1468-0335.1937.tb00002.x · Cited by 23,972
Dilemmas in a general theory of planning
Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973) · Policy Sciences · doi:10.1007/bf01405730 · Cited by 16,338
Teece, D. J. (1986) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/0048-7333(86)90027-2 · Cited by 7,842
Comparative Economic Organization: The Analysis of Discrete Structural Alternatives
Williamson, O. E. (1991) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393356 · Cited by 7,151
A Resource-Based Theory of the Firm: Knowledge Versus Opportunism
Conner, K. R., & Prahalad, C. K. (1996) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.7.5.477 · Cited by 3,146 · cited 1×
“We extend the research by Dutta et al. (1995), Heide (2003), and Parmigiani (2004) by suggesting that these mixed modes’ motivation is not necessarily to use partial integration to check on the market and to ensure fair pricing by suppliers and distributors, but also to use the market to infuse the firm with disciplin…”
What Firms Do? Coordination, Identity, and Learning
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1996) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.7.5.502 · Cited by 3,078
Price, Authority, and Trust: From Ideal Types to Plural Forms
Bradach, J. L., & Eccles, R. G. (1989) · Annual Review of Sociology · doi:10.1146/annurev.so.15.080189.000525 · Cited by 1,990
Cited by
Coordinating and competing in ecosystems: How organizational forms shape new technology investments
Kapoor, R., & Lee, J. M. (2013) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.2010 · Cited by 502
Capron, L., & Mitchell, W. (2009) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1070.0328 · Cited by 430
The mirroring hypothesis: theory, evidence, and exceptions
Colfer, L. J., & Baldwin, C. Y. (2016) · Industrial and Corporate Change · doi:10.1093/icc/dtw027 · Cited by 331
Parker, G., & Van Alstyne, M. (2016) · The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Strategic Management · doi:10.1057/978-1-349-94848-2_435-1 · Cited by 25
Metadata
- Authors
- Jacobides, M. G., & Billinger, S.
- Venue
- Organization Science
- Published
- 2006-04
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 249-261
- ISSN
- 1047-7039 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5455
- OpenAlex
- W2140448817
- Cited by
- 400
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 37.49
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
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.