CAPABILITIES, TRANSACTION COSTS, AND EVOLUTION UNDERSTANDING THE INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE OF PRODUCTION
➤ Gửi thông báo lỗi ⚠️ Báo cáo tài liệu vi phạmNội dung chi tiết: CAPABILITIES, TRANSACTION COSTS, AND EVOLUTION UNDERSTANDING THE INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE OF PRODUCTION
CAPABILITIES, TRANSACTION COSTS, AND EVOLUTION UNDERSTANDING THE INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE OF PRODUCTION
Capabilities, Transaction Costs, and Evolution:Understanding the Institutional Structure of ProductionMichael G. JacobidesAssistant Professor of Strat CAPABILITIES, TRANSACTION COSTS, AND EVOLUTION UNDERSTANDING THE INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE OF PRODUCTIONtegic & International Management London Business SchoolSussex Place, Regent’s Park, London NW1 4SA, United Kingdom mjacobldesifllondon.edu: Tel (- 44 20) 7706 6725; fax (+ 44 20) 7724 7875Sidney G. WinterDeloitte and Touche Professor of Management The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania CAPABILITIES, TRANSACTION COSTS, AND EVOLUTION UNDERSTANDING THE INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE OF PRODUCTION Suite 2000, SH-DH, 3620 Locust Walk, Philadelphia PA 19104, USA Winterfflwharton.upenn.edu: Tel (215) 898 4140: fax (215) 898 404137811At various staCAPABILITIES, TRANSACTION COSTS, AND EVOLUTION UNDERSTANDING THE INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE OF PRODUCTION
ges of this work, helpful comments have been received from a large number of individuals. We would particularly like to thank Sumantra Ghoshal, Freek Capabilities, Transaction Costs, and Evolution:Understanding the Institutional Structure of ProductionMichael G. JacobidesAssistant Professor of Strat CAPABILITIES, TRANSACTION COSTS, AND EVOLUTION UNDERSTANDING THE INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE OF PRODUCTIONisa). Jacobides acknowledges generous financial support by the Mortgage Bankers Association of America: the Centre for the Network Economy at the London Business School: and the Leverhulme Trust / LBS Project on Digital Transformations. Winter acknowledges financial support from the Reginald H. Jone CAPABILITIES, TRANSACTION COSTS, AND EVOLUTION UNDERSTANDING THE INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE OF PRODUCTIONs Center for Management Policy, Strategy and Organization at the Wharton School.Capabilities, Transaction Costs, and Evolution:Understanding the InstiCAPABILITIES, TRANSACTION COSTS, AND EVOLUTION UNDERSTANDING THE INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE OF PRODUCTION
tutional Structure of ProductionAbstractAnalyzing the “institutional structure of production" as proposed by Coase requires a dynamic analysis of the Capabilities, Transaction Costs, and Evolution:Understanding the Institutional Structure of ProductionMichael G. JacobidesAssistant Professor of Strat CAPABILITIES, TRANSACTION COSTS, AND EVOLUTION UNDERSTANDING THE INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE OF PRODUCTIONcosts. Such aggregate forces shape the choice context of individual firms. Specifically, disintegration tends to happen when firms differ in relative competence along the value chain, creating latent gains from trade that then motivate efforts to reduce transaction costs. Changes in scope, in turn, CAPABILITIES, TRANSACTION COSTS, AND EVOLUTION UNDERSTANDING THE INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE OF PRODUCTIONshape the process of capability formation and productivity improvement. These insights are partly formalized in an extension of Fisher’s Selection TheCAPABILITIES, TRANSACTION COSTS, AND EVOLUTION UNDERSTANDING THE INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE OF PRODUCTION
orem.Keywords: institutional structure of production, capabilities, transaction costs, evolutionhttps://khothuvien.cori!Over the last twenty years, muCapabilities, Transaction Costs, and Evolution:Understanding the Institutional Structure of ProductionMichael G. JacobidesAssistant Professor of Strat CAPABILITIES, TRANSACTION COSTS, AND EVOLUTION UNDERSTANDING THE INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE OF PRODUCTIONgure in that development was Oliver Williamson (1975, 1985, 1999) who elaborated and, crucially, operationalized the concept of transaction costs, initially formulated by Coase (1937). This research has focused on a particular strand of the Coasean inquiry, examining the conditions under which firms CAPABILITIES, TRANSACTION COSTS, AND EVOLUTION UNDERSTANDING THE INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE OF PRODUCTION choose to abandon markets in favor of integration. The potential for hold-ups and opportunistic behavior, this theory' suggests, is the main determinCAPABILITIES, TRANSACTION COSTS, AND EVOLUTION UNDERSTANDING THE INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE OF PRODUCTION
ant of vertical scope.Independently, another stream of literature has come to have a defining impact on strategy as a field: the resource- and capabilCapabilities, Transaction Costs, and Evolution:Understanding the Institutional Structure of ProductionMichael G. JacobidesAssistant Professor of Strat CAPABILITIES, TRANSACTION COSTS, AND EVOLUTION UNDERSTANDING THE INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE OF PRODUCTION importance of resources in guiding firm action, and the management of a firm's resource and capability portfolio as the basic principle in strategy. Of late, this research has used principles suggested by evolutionary' economists (Nelson and Winter, 1982) and the focus has shifted to dynamic capabi CAPABILITIES, TRANSACTION COSTS, AND EVOLUTION UNDERSTANDING THE INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE OF PRODUCTIONlities (Teece, Pisano and Shuen, 1997). That theory suggests that the scope of the firm could be explained as a result of the dynamics of resource manCAPABILITIES, TRANSACTION COSTS, AND EVOLUTION UNDERSTANDING THE INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE OF PRODUCTION
agement and the selection environment (Teece, Rumelt, Dosi and Winter, 1994).In the last few years, a convergence between these two fields has startedCapabilities, Transaction Costs, and Evolution:Understanding the Institutional Structure of ProductionMichael G. JacobidesAssistant Professor of Strat CAPABILITIES, TRANSACTION COSTS, AND EVOLUTION UNDERSTANDING THE INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE OF PRODUCTIONms. Williamson himself recognizes that the transaction cost and internal firm perspectives “deal with partly overlapping phenomena, often in complementary ways” (1999: 1098) and points out that a firm’s history and capability endowments matter to boundary choices, a theme developed by Argyres (1996) CAPABILITIES, TRANSACTION COSTS, AND EVOLUTION UNDERSTANDING THE INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE OF PRODUCTION and Argyres and Liebeskind (1999). Williamson also recommends that the traditional TCE query' ‘“What is the best generic mode (market, hybrid, firm)CAPABILITIES, TRANSACTION COSTS, AND EVOLUTION UNDERSTANDING THE INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE OF PRODUCTION
to organize X’ be replaced by the question ‘How-should firm A - which has pre-existing strengths and weaknesses (core competences and1disabilities) --Capabilities, Transaction Costs, and Evolution:Understanding the Institutional Structure of ProductionMichael G. JacobidesAssistant Professor of Strat CAPABILITIES, TRANSACTION COSTS, AND EVOLUTION UNDERSTANDING THE INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE OF PRODUCTION only on the characteristics of the transactional conditions, but also on its strategic objectives, the attributes of its own capabilities, and the governance context it has created. There is by now' substantial empirical support for the proposition that considerations of transaction governance trad CAPABILITIES, TRANSACTION COSTS, AND EVOLUTION UNDERSTANDING THE INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE OF PRODUCTIONe off against capability considerations W'hen firms choose component suppliers (Walker and Weber, 1984; Poppo and Zenger, 1998; Schilling and StensmaaCAPABILITIES, TRANSACTION COSTS, AND EVOLUTION UNDERSTANDING THE INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE OF PRODUCTION
, 2001; Afuah, 2001; Hoetker, 2003). These contributions consider the complementary roles of transactional considerations and capability considerationCapabilities, Transaction Costs, and Evolution:Understanding the Institutional Structure of ProductionMichael G. JacobidesAssistant Professor of Strat CAPABILITIES, TRANSACTION COSTS, AND EVOLUTION UNDERSTANDING THE INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE OF PRODUCTIONcosts together with the examination of capabilities. Specifically, we argue that capabilities play a pivotal role in the dynamic evolution of transaction costs; and that transaction costs, in turn, shape (he distribution of capabilities over time. We identify the specific causal mechanisms involved CAPABILITIES, TRANSACTION COSTS, AND EVOLUTION UNDERSTANDING THE INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE OF PRODUCTIONin this co-evolution of transaction costs and capabilities; to explore these mechanisms, we have to shift the focus (0 the level of the industry. To uCAPABILITIES, TRANSACTION COSTS, AND EVOLUTION UNDERSTANDING THE INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE OF PRODUCTION
nderstand the menu of choices a firm faces at any point in lime (based on its relative capability and transactional environment), W'e have to understaCapabilities, Transaction Costs, and Evolution:Understanding the Institutional Structure of ProductionMichael G. JacobidesAssistant Professor of Strat CAPABILITIES, TRANSACTION COSTS, AND EVOLUTION UNDERSTANDING THE INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE OF PRODUCTION, is the analysis of the evolutionary dynamics shaping the firm’s environment, and of the mechanisms through which capabilities and transaction costs co-evolve. Concretely, W'e identify five causal mechanisms to explicate the interrelationship between capabilities and transaction costs. First, we co CAPABILITIES, TRANSACTION COSTS, AND EVOLUTION UNDERSTANDING THE INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE OF PRODUCTIONnsider the intra-organizational formation of the vertical divide, i.e., the progress of internal organization in firms, which creates internal boundarCAPABILITIES, TRANSACTION COSTS, AND EVOLUTION UNDERSTANDING THE INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE OF PRODUCTION
ies that may subsequently become firm boundaries. Second, we examine the impact of capability differences and selection effects on vertical scope and Capabilities, Transaction Costs, and Evolution:Understanding the Institutional Structure of ProductionMichael G. JacobidesAssistant Professor of Strat CAPABILITIES, TRANSACTION COSTS, AND EVOLUTION UNDERSTANDING THE INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE OF PRODUCTIONstribution of capabilities up- vs. down-stream) is the key source of incentives to create and use an intermediate market. Simply put, a firm that finds itself relatively weak in one vertical stage is likely to look outside for help. Third, we consider the endogenous transaction cost reduction mechan CAPABILITIES, TRANSACTION COSTS, AND EVOLUTION UNDERSTANDING THE INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE OF PRODUCTIONism. Specifically, we suggest that the extent of actual reduction of TC in an industry is endogenous since a) forces of selection, imitation and scaleCAPABILITIES, TRANSACTION COSTS, AND EVOLUTION UNDERSTANDING THE INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE OF PRODUCTION
economies reduce the effective heterogeneity of firms, thus affecting incentives for TC reduction, and b) individual firms have incentives to invest Capabilities, Transaction Costs, and Evolution:Understanding the Institutional Structure of ProductionMichael G. JacobidesAssistant Professor of Strat CAPABILITIES, TRANSACTION COSTS, AND EVOLUTION UNDERSTANDING THE INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE OF PRODUCTION 1776; Stigler, 1951). Fourth, we look at the role of knowledge accumulation, and argue that vertical specialization may facilitate (and come about because of) the accumulation of specialized knowledge. We then show how these four mechanisms interact and work in self-reinforcing ways, determining th CAPABILITIES, TRANSACTION COSTS, AND EVOLUTION UNDERSTANDING THE INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE OF PRODUCTIONe industry’s scope on the basis of the process of capability development. We then consider a final mechanism, which suggests that changes in the transCAPABILITIES, TRANSACTION COSTS, AND EVOLUTION UNDERSTANDING THE INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE OF PRODUCTION
actional environment affect the process of knowledge accumulation and capability development in ways that reach beyond the industry boundaries of a paCapabilities, Transaction Costs, and Evolution:Understanding the Institutional Structure of ProductionMichael G. JacobidesAssistant Professor of Strat CAPABILITIES, TRANSACTION COSTS, AND EVOLUTION UNDERSTANDING THE INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE OF PRODUCTION984), Langlois (1992; 2003) and Langlois and Robertson (1989; 1995). It thus provides some insight on what Coase (1991) termed the “Institutional Structure of Production” (ISP) - a set of systemic relationships and structures extending beyond the make-vs.-buy choices, as we elaborate in the discussi CAPABILITIES, TRANSACTION COSTS, AND EVOLUTION UNDERSTANDING THE INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE OF PRODUCTIONon.The paper is organized as follows: The next section lays out our analytical premises. We then consider the specific co-evolutionary mechanisms thatCAPABILITIES, TRANSACTION COSTS, AND EVOLUTION UNDERSTANDING THE INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE OF PRODUCTION
affect vertical scope, the distribution of capabilities, and the transactional environment. A portion of the verbal analysis of this co-evolutionaryGọi ngay
Chat zalo
Facebook