Agency, structure, and the dominance of OEMs : Change and stability in the automotive sector

Michael G. Jacobides · John Paul MacDuffie · C. Jennifer Tae

205 citations0/0 files storedStrategic Management Journal

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Outsourcing and Supply Chain Management Management and Organizational Studies Product Development and Customization

Abstract

Research summary: This article reviews structural change in the automotive sector from 1997 to 2007. We find that, following internal framing contests, O riginal E quipment M anufacturers ( OEMs) led efforts to change their sector's architecture, starting from both strong and weak competitive positions and working with suppliers to advocate a new vision based on modularity and outsourcing. As the risks and costs of this vision became apparent, OEMs were able to reverse course and reaffirm their hierarchical control on the sector, taking advantage of structural features that weren't salient ex ante. We consider why certain OEMs initiated this status‐quo challenging change, and identify how sector structure mediated their (and suppliers') efforts to implement it. We document the complex change process, driven by agency, structure, and heterogeneity in firms' understanding of their sector's architecture . Managerial summary: We study the “industry architecture” (i.e., division of labor and profit) of the automotive sector. During the late 1990s, O riginal E quipment M anufacturers ( OEMs) embraced a new vision, based on “ M odularity + O utsourcing,” inspired by an analogy with Personal Computers (PCs). This seems puzzling since such a change was hard to implement and could have led to OEMs relinquishing strategic control of the sector. The misstep was caused by internal framing contests and the agendas and influence of suppliers, consultants, and academics. We also consider why OEMs were able to partially reverse these changes, and document the role of structural features that let them control their sector and retain value: managing the customer experience, acting as guarantors of quality, and preserving hierarchical supply chains in which they functioned as system integrators . Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 205 citations exist upstream.

References

1984Case Study Research: Design and Methods 1991Case Study Research: Design and Methods 2003The Theory of Economic Development 1983An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change.1997Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy 1987The Economic Institutions of Capitalism 2006The Core Competence of the Corporation 1986The Economic Institutions of Capitalism

Cited by

2019Integrating Research on Interorganizational Networks and Ecosystems 2016The mirroring hypothesis: theory, evidence, and exceptions 2017Surrendering control to gain advantage: Reconciling openness and the resource‐based view of the firm 2017The Evolution of Management Models: A Neo-Schumpeterian Theory 2021The Evolutionary Dynamics of the Artificial Intelligence Ecosystem 2020Coworking spaces: Empowerment for entrepreneurship and innovation in the digital and sharing economy

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.