5 CONCLUSIONS
5.5 Suggestions for further research
There are some peculiarities of the empirical context which might give rise to certain limitations.
Firstly, the application store market (publications I and II) and the technology (publications III and IV) were not in the mature stages of their lifecycles when most of the empirical work was executed.
Nascent markets are characterized by ambiguity, rapid change, and uncertainty. Thus the complementary products provided by the complementors and the interrelationships among them might have not been well‐established which might have influenced the theoretical generalizability of the results.
Moreover, it can be assumed that the proposed model will be better suited to companies in ICT and other knowledge‐intensive industries than to more traditional sectors. The objective of the dissertation is not to provide statistically generalizable results, but to reach theoretical generalizations and offer a more profound understanding of structural properties of architecture in the theoretical context of ecosystems (and in the empirical context of the ICT industry). Thus the discussion on construct validity, the ability to crisply and precisely describe theoretical constructs to guide operationalization and measurement (Bagozzi & Edwards, 1998; Cook & Campbell, 1979;
Schwab, 1980), is not purposeful here as inference and explanation were not based on hypothetico‐
deductive research design. However, it is in order to discuss construct clarity (even though according to Suddaby (2010) the field of management is typically silent on the subject).
Suddaby (2010) discusses four elements of construct clarity: definitions, scope conditions (under which contextual condition a proposed construct will or will not adhere), semantic relationships, and coherence, which are linked to the quality of the report especially in terms of resonance and rhetoric. Whereas the introduction part of the dissertation succeeds in providing constructs which are clearly defined, and whose scope conditions and referential relationships are elaborated, the dissertation lacks intertextual coherence between the introduction part and the publications thus compromising the resonance and rhetoric quality of the report. This unfortunate situation is merely due to the rapid proliferation of ecosystem literature and related constructs after the complementary publications had been finished but the introduction part was still in its infancy.
Thus a trade‐off emerged between whether to focus more on resonance and rhetoric coherence between the introduction (part I) and complementary publications (part II) or to focus more on construct clarity to address the right audience. The latter was chosen.
5.5 Suggestions for further research
Suggestions for further research include testing the developed framework of the study. Whereas the approach of this study was one of theory‐building, in order to address the concerns of knowledge creation in silos (Pfeffer, 1993), displacement of ends (McKinley, 2010) and low heed in organization theory (McKinley et al., 2011), the empirical validation of the framework and replication studies are needed. For example, similarly to publication VI, further research could engage deductive reasoning, formulate hypotheses on the influence of a particular structural property of value creation/appropriation to address questions such as what determines surplus division in multi‐actor collaboration. In general, an interesting research avenue would be to join the upsurge of structural contingency theory to examine equifinality and how different ways to structure the architecture can lead to similar outcomes in value creation and appropriation potential.
The developed framework remains open both for qualitative and quantitative approach. Out of these, a qualitative approach would most likely serve the purpose better due to the strong process focus of the framework. The framework could be applied to different industries. Furthermore, the processes of value creation and capture in innovation networks and ecosystems require more
56
construct clarity. This study offers a starting point by identifying the structural properties of architecture and their implications for value creation and capture but further research on this frontier is still needed.
In addition, this study suggests that the framework developed in this study should be combined with the industry evolution literature in order to understand its strategic importance on different structural properties and on design and management processes in different phases of the industry evolution. Moreover, as the level of analysis in this study has been both the ecosystem and individual firm (“within ecosystem competition”) more research on competition between different ecosystems is needed.
Further, it would be fruitful to study how technological architecture and ecosystem architecture mirror each other. The basic idea behind mirroring has different names in different fields.
Organization design treats mirroring as an application of task contingency theory to product design and development (Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967; Drazin & Van de Ven, 1985) whereas computer science labels the phenomenon as Conway’s Law (Conway, 1968). In general, mirroring hypotheses predicts correspondence between technological and organization design decisions but does not impose a direction of causality (Colfer & Baldwin, 2010). Previous research has found that it might be the organizational structure affecting the technical design (Henderson & Clark, 1990), or the technical design affecting the organizational structure (Chandler, 1977) or there might be a reciprocal relationship (Baldwin & Clark, 2000; Fixson & Park, 2008). Open source development communities have been examined when it comes to mirroring between technological architecture and ecosystem architecture; however, proprietary technology development projects at the ecosystem level have not been examined. To position such a mirroring study at the intersection of literature on organization design and organizations as complex systems at the ecosystem level (Gulati & Kletter, 2005; Fjeldstad et al., 2012; Gulati et al., 2012) and the literature on product design and products in complex systems (Alexander, 1964; Parnas, 1972, 1978; Ulrich, 1995) would be intuitive and analogical, given the intellectual home of mirroring hypothesis. This position would, however, lead to an incremental theoretical contribution reclining to the introduction of a new unit of analysis, ecosystem. By positioning this study at the intersection of the aforementioned research streams and those of strategy and strategic action, the theoretical contribution is (more) revelatory. Thus, it would enable a look at the strategic processes aimed at managing the mirroring with the question of what the strategic processes aimed at managing the mirroring of technological and ecosystem architecture are and how the strategic processes aimed at managing the ecosystem architecture influence the technological architecture, and vice versa.
57 REFERENCES
Adegbesan, J. A., & Higgins, M. J. 2010. The intra‐alliance division of value created through collaboration. Strategic Management Journal, 32: 187‐211.
Adner, R. 2006. Match your innovation strategy to your innovation ecosystem. Harvard Business Review, 84: 98‐107.
Adner, R. 2012. The wide lens: a new strategy for innovation. Portfolio/Penguin: New York.
Adner, R., & Kapoor, R. 2010. Value creation in innovation ecosystems: how the structure of technological interdependence affects firm performance in new technology generations.
Strategic Management Journal, 31: 306‐333.
Ahuja, G. 2000. The duality of collaboration: inducements and opportunities in the formation of interfirm linkages. Strategic Management Journal, 21: 317‐343.
Alexander, C. 1964. Notes on the synthesis of form. Harvard University Press: Cambridge.
Allee, V. 2000. Reconfiguring the value network. Journal of Business Strategy, 21: 36‐39.
Alvesson, M., & Deetz, S. 1996. Critical theory and postmodernism approaches to organization studies. In Clegg, S. R., Hardy, C., & Nord, W. R. (eds.) 1996. Handbook of organization studies. Sage Publications Ltd: London.
Alvesson, M., & Kärreman, D. 2007. Constructing mystery: empirical matters in theory development.
Academy of Management Review, 32: 1265‐1281.
Astley, W. G. 1985. Administrative science as socially constructed truth. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30: 497‐513.
Avermaete T. 2005. Another Modern: The Postwar Architecture and Urbanism of Candilis‐Josic‐
Woods. NAi Publishers: Rotterdam.
Bacharach, S. B. 1989. Organizational theories: some criteria for evaluation. Academy of Management Review, 14: 496‐515.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Edwards, J. R. 1998. A general approach for representing constructs in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 1: 45‐87.
Bailyn, L. 1977. Research as a cognitive process: Implications for data analysis. Quality and Quantity, 11: 97‐117.
Baldwin, C. Y. 2008. Where do transactions come from? Modularity, transactions, and the boundaries of firms. Industrial and Corporate Change, 17: 155‐195.
Baldwin, C. Y., & Clark, K. B. 1997. Managing in an age of modularity. Harvard Business Review, 75:
84‐93.
Baldwin, C. Y., & Clark, K. B. 2000. Design rules: the power of modularity. MIT Press: Cambridge.
Baldwin, C. Y., & Clark, K. B. 2006. Architectural innovation and dynamic competition: the smaller
“footprint” strategy. Harvard Business School Working Paper 07‐014.
Bansal, P., & Corley, K. 2011. The coming of age for qualitative research: embracing the diversity of qualitative methods. Academy of Management Review, 51: 233‐237.
Barnard, C. 1938. The Functions of the Executive. Harvard University Press: Cambridge.
Bartnett, W. P. 1990. The organizational ecology of a technological system. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35: 31‐60.
Basole, R. C., & Karla, J. 2011. On the evolution of mobile platform ecosystem structure and strategy.
Business & Information Systems Engineering, 5: 313‐322.
Bechara, J. P., & Van de Ven, A. H. 2007. Philosophy of science underlying engaged scholarship. In Van de Ven, A. H. 2007. Engaged scholarship: a guide for organizational and social research. Oxford University Press: Oxford.
Belussi, F., & Arcangeli, F. 1998. A typology of networks: flexible and evolutionary firms. Research Policy, 27: 415‐428.
58
Boudreau, K. J., & Lakhani, K. R. 2009. How to manage outside innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 50: 69‐76.
Bowman, C., & Ambrosini, V. 2000. Value creation versus value capture: towards a coherent definition of value in strategy. British Journal of Management, 11:1‐15.
Brandenburger, A. M., & Stuart, H. W. Jr. 1996. Value‐based business strategy. Journal of Eonomics
& Management Strategy, 5: 5‐24.
Brandenburger, A. M., & Stuart, H. W. Jr. 2004. Biform Games. New York University: Mimeo.
Burrell, G. 1996. Normal science, paradigms, metaphors, discourses and genealogies of analysis. In Clegg, S. R., Hardy, C., & Nord, W. R. (eds.) 1996. Handbook of organization studies. Sage Publications Ltd: London.
Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. 1979. Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis. Heinemann:
London.
Burt, R. S. 1992. Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Harvard University Press:
Cambridge.
Campagnolo, D., & Camuffo, A. 2010. The concept of modularity in management studies: a literature review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12: 259‐283.
Cannella, A. A. Jr., & Paetzold, R. L. 1994. Pfeffer’s barriers to the advance of organizational science:
a rejoinder. Academy of Management Review, 19: 331‐341.
Carlile, P. R., & Christensen, C. M. 2004. The cycles of theory building in management research.
Harvard Business School Working Paper 05‐057.
Casadesus‐Masanell, R., & Ricard, J. E. 2007. Competing through business models. IESE Business School Working Paper 713.
Chandler, A. D. 1977. The visible hand: the managerial evolution in American business. Harvard University Press: Cambridge.
Chandra, S., & Shadel, W. G. 2007. Crossing disciplinary boundaries: Applying financial portfolio theory to model the organization of the self‐concept. Journal of Research in Personality, 41:
346‐373.
Chia, R. 1996. Organizational analysis as deconstructive practice. Walter de Gruyter & Co.:
Berlin.
Chia, R. 2003. Organization theory as a postmodern science. In Tsoukas, H., & Knudsen, C. (eds.) 2003. The Oxford handbook of organization theory. Oxford University Press: Oxford.
Coase, R. 1937. The nature of the firm. Economica, 4: 386‐405.
Coffey, A., & Atkinson, P. 1996. Making sense of qualitative data: complementary research strategies. Sage Publications, Inc.: Thousand Oaks.
Colfer, L., & Baldwin, C. Y. 2010. The mirroring hypothesis: theory, evidence and exceptions.
Harvard Business School Working Paper 10‐058.
Commons, J. 1932. The problem of correlating law, economics, and ethics. Wisconsin Law Review, 8: 3‐26.
Conway, M. 1968. How do committees invest? Datamation, 14: 28‐31.
Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. 1979. Quasi‐experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field setting. Rand McNally: Chicago.
Creswell, J. W. 2009. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Method Approaches.
Sage Publications, Inc.: London.
Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. 1963. A Behavioural Theory of the Firm. Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs.
Daft, R. L., & Lewin, A. Y. 1990. Can organization studies begin to break out of the normal science straitjacket? An editorial essay. Organization Science, 1: 1‐9.
Das, T. K., & Teng, B.‐S. 2000. A resource‐based theory of strategic alliances. Journal of Management, 26: 31‐61.
59
Davis, J. P., & Eisenhardt, K. M. 2011. Rotating leadership and collaborative innovation:
recombination processes in symbiotic relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 56:
159‐201.
Deardorff, A. V., & Stern, R. M. 1994. The Stolper–Samuelson Theorem: A Golden Jubilee. The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
Dedrick, J., Kraemer, K. L., & Linden, G. 2009. Who profits from innovation in global value chains?: a study of the iPod and notebook PCs. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19: 81‐116.
Deetz, S. 1996. Describing differences in approaches to organization science: rethinking Burrell and Morgan and their legacy. Organization Science, 7: 191‐207.
Dhanaraj, C., & Parkhe, A. 2006. Orchestrating innovation networks. Academy of Management Review, 31: 659‐669.
Dietl, H., Royer, S., & Stratmann, U. 2009. Value creation architectures and competitive advantage.
California Management Review, 51: 24‐48.
Donaldson, L. 1985. In Defense of Organization Theory: A Reply to the Critics. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Donaldson, L. 1996. For Positivist Organization Theory. Sage Publications, Inc.: Thousand Oaks.
Donaldson, L. 2001. The Contingency Theory of Organizations. Sage Publications, Inc.: Thousand Oaks.
Donaldson, L. 2003. Organization theory as a positive science. In Tsoukas, H., & Knudsen, C. (eds.) 2003. The Oxford handbook of organization theory. Oxford University Press: Oxford.
Doz, Y. L., Olk, P. M., & Ring, P. S. 2000. Formation processes of R&D consortia: Which path to take?
Where does it lead? Strategic Management Journal. 21: 239‐266.
Drazin, R., & Van de Ven, A. H. 1985. Alternative forms of fit in contingency theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30: 514‐539.
Dubois, A., & Gadde, L. 2002. Systematic combining: an abductive approach to case research.
Journal of Business Research, 55: 553‐560.
Dubois, A., & Gibbert, M. 2010. From complexity to transparency: managing the interplay between theory, method and empirical phenomena in IMM case studies. Industrial Marketing Management, 39: 129‐136.
Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. 1998. The relational view: cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23: 660‐679.
Eisenhardt, K. 1989. Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14: 532‐550.
Eriksson, P., & Kovalainen, A. 2008. Qualitative Methods in Business Research. Sage Publications, Ltd.: London.
Ethiraj, S. K., & Levinthal, D. A. 2004. Bounded rationality and the search for organizational architecture: an evolutionary perspective on the design of organizations and their evolvability. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49: 404‐437.
Ethiraj, S. K., & Puranam, P. 2004. The distribution of R&D effort in systemic industries: implications for competitive advantage. Advances in Strategic Management, 21: 225‐253.
Evans, D. S. 2003. Some Empirical Aspects of Multi‐sided Platform Industries. Review of Network Economics, 2: 191‐209.
Evans, D. S., & Schmalensee, R. 2007. The industrial organization of markets with two‐sided platforms. Competition Policy International, 3: 151‐179.
Ferraro, F., & Gurses, K. 2009. Building architectural advantage in the US motion picture industry:
Lew Wasserman and the Music Corporation of America. European Management Review, 6:
233‐249.
Feyerabend, P. 1980 Democracy, Elitism, and Scientific Method. Inquiry, 23: 3‐18.
Fixson, S. B., & Park, J.‐K. 2008. The power of integrality: linkages between product architecture, innovation, and industry structure. Research Policy, 37: 1296‐1316.
60
Fjelstad, Ø., Snow, C., Miles, R., & Lettl, C. 2012. The architecture of collaboration. Strategic Management Journal, 33: 734‐750.
Fligstein, N. 2001. Organizations: theoretical debates and the scope of organizational theory.
University of California Working Paper.
Galbraith, J. R. 1973. Designing complex organizations. Addison‐Wesley: Reading.
Gawer, A., & Cusumano, M. A. 2002. Platform leadership: How Intel, Microsoft, and Cisco Drive Industry Innovation. Harvard Business School Press: Cambridge.
Gawer, A., & Cusumano, M. A. 2008. How companies become platform leaders. MIT Sloan Management Review, 49: 28‐35.
Gawer, A., & Cusumano, M. 2012. Industry platforms and ecosystem innovation. Paper presented at the DRUID 2012 on June 19 to June 21 at CBS, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Gereffi, G. 1994. The organization of buyer‐driven global commodity chains: how US retailers shape overseas production networks. In Gereffi, G., & Korzeniewicz, M. (eds.). Commodity Chains and Global Capitalism. Greenwood Press: Westport.
Gibbert, M., Ruigrok, W., & Wicki, B. 2008. What passes as a rigorous case study? Strategic Management Journal, 29: 1465‐1474.
Gioia, D. A., & Pitre, E. 1990. Multiparadigm perspectives to theory building. Academy of Management Review, 15: 584‐602.
Golafshani, N. 2003. Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 8: 597‐607.
Gossain, G., & Kandiah, S. 1998. Reinventing value: the new business ecosystem. Strategy &
Leadership, 26: 28‐33.
Gourevitch, P., Bohn, R., & McKendrick, D. 2000. Globalization of production: insights from the hard disk drive industry. World Development, 28: 301‐317.
Graebner, M. E., Martin, J. A., & Roundy, P. T. 2012. Qualitative data: cooking without a recipe.
Strategic Organization, 10: 276‐284.
Greene, J. 2007. Mixed Methods in Social Inquiry. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: San Francisco.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. 1994. Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In Denzin, N. K. &
Lincoln, Y. S. (eds.). Handbook of qualitative research. Sage Publications, Inc.: Thousand Oaks.
Gulati, R., & Kletter, D. 2005. Shrinking core, expanding periphery: the relational architecture of high‐performing organizations. California Management Review, 47: 77‐104.
Gulati, R., & Singh, H. 1998. The architecture of cooperation: managing coordination costs and appropriation concerns in strategic alliances. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43: 781‐
814.
Gulati, R., & Sytch, M. 2007. Dependence asymmetry and joint dependence in interorganizational relationships: effects of embeddedness on a manufacturer’s performance in procurement relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52: 32‐69.
Gulati, R., Puranam, P., & Tushman, M. 2012. Meta‐organization design: rethinking design in interorganizational and community contexts. Strategic Management Journal, 33: 571‐586.
Hacki, R., & Lighton, J. 2001. The future of the networked company. McKinsey Quarterly, 3: 26‐39.
Hallen, B. L. 2008. The causes and consequences of the initial network positions of new organizations: from whom do entrepreneurs receive investments? Administrative Science Quarterly, 53: 685‐718.
Hallen, B. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. 2012. Catalysing strategies and efficient tie formation: how entrepreneurial firms obtain investment ties. Academy of Management Journal, 55: 35‐70.
Harman, G. H. 1965. The inference to the best explanation. Philosophical Review, 74: 88‐95.
Harrison, J. R., Lin, Z., Carrol., G. R., & Carley, K. M. 2007. Simulation modelling in organizational and management research. Academy of Management Review, 32: 1229‐1245.
61
Hayek, F. 1945. The use of knowledge in society. American Economics Review, 35: 519‐530.
Helfat, C. E., & Campo‐Rembado, M. 2010. Integrative capabilities, vertical integration, and innovation over successive technology lifecycles. Tuck School of Business Working Paper.
Hempel, C. G. 1965. Aspects of scientific explanation and other essays in the philosophy of science. Free Press: New York.
Henderson, R., & Clark, K. B. 1990. Architectural innovation: the reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35: 9‐
30.
Higgins, M., & Gulati, R. 2003. Getting off to a good start: the effect of upper echelon affiliations on underwriter prestige. Organization Science, 14: 244‐263.
Hoepfl, M. C. 1997. Choosing qualitative research: a primer for technology education researchers.
Journal of Technology Education, 9: 47‐63.
Hoetker, G. 2006. Do modular products lead to modular organizations? Strategic Management Journal, 27: 501‐518.
Iansiti, M., & Levien, R. 2004. Strategy as ecology. Harvard Business Review, 82: 68‐78.
Jacobides, M. G. 2005. Industry change through vertical disintegration: how and why markets emerged in mortgage banking. Academy of Management Journal, 48: 465‐498.
Jacobides, M. G., & Billinger, S. 2006. Designing the boundaries of the firm: from “make, buy, or ally”
to the dynamic benefits of vertical architecture. Organization Science, 17: 249‐261.
Jacobides, M. G., & Hitt, L. M. 2005. Losing sight of the forest for the trees? Productive capabilities and gains from trade as drivers of vertical scope. Strategic Management Journal, 26: 1209‐
1277.
Jacobides, M. G., Knudsen, T., & Augier, M. 2006. Benefiting from innovation: Value creation, value appropriation and the role of industry architectures. Research Policy, 35: 1200‐1221.
Jacobides, M. G., & Winter, S. G. 2005. The co‐evolution of capabilities and transaction costs:
explaining the institutional structure of production. Strategic Management Journal, 26:
395‐413.
Jarillo, J. C. 1988. On strategic networks. Strategic Management Journal, 9: 31‐41.
Kaplinsky, R., & Fitter, R. 2004. Technology and globalization: who gains when commodities are decommodified? International Journal of Technology and Globalization, 1: 5‐28.
Kapoor, R. 2011. Persistence of integration in the face of specialization: how firms navigated the winds of disintegration and shaped the architecture of the semiconductor industry. Columbia Working Paper.
Kenis, P., & Knoke, D. 2002. How organization field networks shape interorganizational tie‐
formation rates. Academy of Management Review, 27: 275‐293.
Ketokivi, M., & Mantere, S. 2010. Two strategies for inductive reasoning in organizational research.
Academy of Management Review, 35: 315‐333.
Knoke, D. 1994. Political Networks: The Structural Perspective. Cambridge University Press:
Cambridge.
Kothandaraman, P., & Wilson, D. T. 2001. The future of competition: value‐creation networks.
Industrial Marketing Management, 30: 379‐389.
Krugman, P. 1994. Complex landscapes in economic geography. American Economic Review, 84:
412‐417.
Kuhn, T. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press: Chicago.
62
Lamoreaux, N. R., Raff, D. M. G., & Temin, P. 2003. Beyond Markets and Hierarchies: Toward a New Synthesis of American Business History. The American Historical Review, 108: 404‐433.
Langlois, R. N. 2003. The vanishing hand: the changing dynamics of industrial capitalism. Industrial and Corporate Change, 12: 351‐385.
Langlois, R. N., & Robertson, P. L. 1992. Networks and innovation in a modular system: lessons from the microcomputer and stereo component industries. Research Policy, 21: 297‐313.
Langlois, R. N., & Robertson, P. L. 1995. Firms, markets, and economic change: a dynamic theory of business institutions. Routledge: London.
Lavie, D. 2007. Alliance portfolios and firm performance: a study of value creation and appropriation in the U.S. software industry. Strategic Management Journal, 28: 1187‐1212.
Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. 1967. Differentiation and integration in complex organizations.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 12: 1‐47.
Lepak, D. P., Smith, K. G., & Taylor, M. S. 2007. Value creation and value capture: a multilevel perspective. Academy of Management Review, 32: 180‐194.
LePine, J. A., & King, A. W. 2010. Developing novel theoretical insight from reviews of existing theory and research. Academy of Management Review, 35: 506‐509.
Lincoln, Y. S. (ed.). 1985. Organizational Theory and Inquiry. Sage Publications, Inc.: Newbury Park.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. Sage Publications, Inc.: New York.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E.1990. Judging the quality of case study reports. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 3: 53‐59.
Lippman, S. A., & Rumelt, R. P. 2003. A bargaining perspective on resource advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 24: 1069‐1086.
Lipton, P. 2004. Inference to the best explanation. Routledge: London.
Locke, K., & Golden‐Biddle, K. 1997. Constructing opportunities for contribution: structuring intertextual coherence and “problematizing” in organization studies. Academy of Management Journal., 40: 1023‐1062.
Lorenzoni, G., & Baden‐Fuller, C. 1995. Creating a strategic center to manage a web of partners.
California Management Review, 37: 146‐163.
Luo, J. 2010. Hierarchy in industry architecture: transaction strategy under technological constraints. Dissertation, Massaschusetts Institute of Technology.
Luo, J., Whitney, D. E., Baldwin, C. Y., & Magee, C. L. 2011. How firm strategies influence the architecture of transaction networks. Harvard Business School Working Paper 11‐076.
Luo, J., Baldwin, C. Y., Whitney, D. E., & Magee, C. L. 2012. The architecture of transaction networks:
Luo, J., Baldwin, C. Y., Whitney, D. E., & Magee, C. L. 2012. The architecture of transaction networks: