NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
Table of Contents Introduction 1. From the Modern Corporation to Production Networks: A Paradigm Shift 2. Schumpeter's Notion of Innovation in the Giant Firm 3. Turnkey Contract Manufacturing in Electronics 4. The Drinking of Production from Innovation in the Turnkey Network 5. Conclusion Bibliography: Endnotes: Introduction Evidence from the electronics industry suggests that a new American model of industry organization is emerging in the 1990 s.
American electronics firms are outsourcing an increasing share of their production. As this practice grows, manufacturing capacity is building up in turnkey production networks that consist of specialized and highly capable merchant suppliers that provide the industry with a functionally coherent set of com modified production services. When firms that supply external productive capacity develop a merchant character, as they have in the American-led electronics industry, manufacturing capacity is essentially shared by the industry as a whole, reducing costs and spreading risks in an increasingly volatile world market. As such merchant external economies develop, the link between innovative capacity and market share, on one hand, and firm size and scope, on the other, begins to break down. This link was the cornerstone of Schumpeter's conception of industry structure and his explanation for the rise of the large, vertically integrated industrial firm in the early part of the twentieth century. Firms that outsource a large share of their manufacturing no longer have to carry the financial, administrative, and technical burdens of fixed capital related to production (i.
e. , plant and equipment), allowing them to focus on innovation and become more organizationally and geographically flexible. At the same time, such brand-name firms are no longer buffered from competitive pressure by large in-house fixed capital. Barriers to entry are lowered because competitors can tap the same turnkey production networks and therefore gain access to leading-edge, global-scale production capacity (unless specific institutional constraints are present). Thus, for the innovating firm, competitive outcomes become more tightly tied to product-level innovation (i.
e. , product definition, development, and design) as productive capacity migrates into turnkey networks. At the industry level, turnkey production networks make it possible for market share to change hands without the idling of any productive capacity, mollifying the destructive aspect of innovation predicted in Schumpeter's conception of creative destruction. This paper explores the implications of the following hypothesis: that a significant share of American firms are adapting to volatile and intensely competitive market conditions by outsourcing manufacturing functions to specialized merchant suppliers. At the same time, brand-name firms have reasserted control over product definition, design, and marketing functions, which are largely being kept in-house, despite the spate of high-profile strategic alliances formed in the 1990 s. In essence, I argue that market-creating innovative capacity is being hoarded in-house while market-supplying productive capacity is being allowed to migrate into external economies that can be shared industry-wide. Such external scale economies are coming to reside in a cadre of specialized merchant suppliers that offer access to a functionally coherent set of production functions as a service to their customers, the brand name firms.
The emerging organizational split between innovation and production is usually enabled by highly formalized links at the inter-firm boundary. The hypothesis is derived from research on product-level electronics manufacturing (computers, communications equipment, consumer electronics, etc. ), where such an organizational shift, from in-house to outsourced manufacturing, has been dramatic in recent years. However, even superficial observations strongly suggest that comparable changes are underway in many other sectors as well (e. g. , apparel and footwear, toys, data processing, home furnishings and lighting, semiconductor fabrication, food processing, automotive parts, brewing, enterprise networking, and pharmaceuticals). The aim of this paper is not to prove that the shift is occurring in every American firm, or even to provide a detailed analysis of the changes in the electronics industry. I have presented the latter evidence more fully elsewhere (Sturgeon, 1990, 1991 a, 1991 b, 1992, 1997; Sturgeon and Cohen, 1996).
Instead, the model of industry organization derived from the electronics case is exposed to one of the key theoretical tools that have been developed to predict and explain industry structure and economic development: Schumpeter's notion of innovation in the giant firm. It is my opinion that the emerging split between product-level innovation and production in American industry is clear enough to take the next step of testing, and perhaps modifying, the analytic tools that we currently have at our disposal. 1. From the Modern Corporation to Production Networks: A Paradigm Shift Through the mid- 1980 s, the dominant paradigm for the study of industrial organization and economic development was the modern corporation as best defined by Chandler (1977). There was good reason for this focus. By the 1950 s, the large multi divisional (and increasingly multinational) enterprise, with its extensive managerial hierarchy, had become an undeniable force in economic development, not only in its heartland, the United States, but also in other countries where its features were adopted as a model for local firms.
Regardless of analytic stripe (e. g. , neoclassical, Weber ian, Marxist), the large, multi divisional, hierarchically-controlled corporation provided a set of ordering assumptions for theorists interested in explaining its rise and inner logic (theories of the firm), as well as for those working on problems of economic development where the modern corporation played a central role, such as literature on the transnational corporation and development (e. g. , Gershenkron, 1962; Vernon, 1966, Williamson, 1975, 1981, Person, 1981). For many, the archetype of the modern corporation that emerged from this work was held up as the pinnacle of capitalist development and for nearly all, the giant firm was recognized as the central force in economic development. As an ideal type, it was well understood, and it was assumed that firms would, over time, become closer to its image. The work of Joseph Schumpeter too was deeply affected by the rise of the large corporation.
Schumpeter's early work The Theory of Economic Development (1934), first published in German in 1911, focused on the role of the small-firm entrepreneur in driving innovation. Entrepreneurs continually create disequilibrium in existing capitalism through the formation of new firms in an environment of easy market entry. Schumpeter's later work recognized the empirical reality of the rise of the large firm in American industry during the first few decades of the twentieth century. By the time he wrote Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy (1942), Schumpeter's focus had shifted from the innovative entrepreneur to innovation in the R&# 038; D laboratory, from tacit to codified knowledge, from low to high market entry barriers, and from small to large firms (Nelson and Winter, 1982; Malbera and Orsenigo, 1995). He argued that observable productivity increases in the American economy were largely due to innovations delivered by the R&# 038; D laboratories of large firms in an environment of high barriers to market entry (Schumpeter, 1942). During the 1970 s and 1980 s, changes in the world economy, particularly the failure of large American corporations to adequately respond to new competition from Asia, cast doubt on ideas that used the modern corporation as an organizing principle, plunging a wide range of fields into crisis and triggering research into aspects of industrial organization that had previously been obscured. (1) Until the 1980 s the shadow of the modern corporation had rendered alternative organizational forms nearly invisible in the literature, but the faltering of some of the United States largest manufacturing firms in the face of Asian competition signaled that something was very amiss with the modern corporation.
The complacency that had set in over so much of thinking about industry organization and economic development began to unravel. Thus began the search for a new model. Some revisited the work on periodic crisis and instability that had been triggered by the Great Depression (van Duijn, 1983), while others noted that many of the problems of the modern corporation could be traced to the emergence of powerful new competitors from Europe and Asia (Bluestone and Harrison, 1982), and set about analyzing industrial systems that did not fit the Anglo-American norm (Schonberger, 1982). Still others found pockets of economic vitality based on networks of small firms, and offered new models of industrial development based on their findings (Piore and Sabel, 1984). Much of this work suggested that the era of United States industrial hegemony had passed along with the modern corporation, and that new, more dynamic models of industrial organization were stepping into the breach (Lie petz, 1983). After more than ten years of research and debate, the task of building a new paradigm for industrial organization and economic development is well underway, although consensus is still far from being reached.
Some of what had been obscured has now come into view. The focus has shifted away from the logic and ramifications of the seemingly inexorable expansion of the internal structures of the modern corporation to the external economies created by the ongoing interactions between firms. External economies have appeared in different guises in the literature, depending on the scale of analysis. At the most basic level of firm-to-firm contracting, external economies are created when one firm outsources or sub-contracts an activity that had previously been performed in-house to another firm. The totality of the external linkages created by contracting relationships in larger amalgams of firms have been described as production networks.
When such networks are spatially clustered, which they often are, they make up agglomeration economies that tend to be located in sector-specific industrial districts. Ideas about the importance of external economies have come from a variety of academic disciplines. Sociologists and organizational theorists have provided ideas about how trust, reputation, and long-term relational contracting can create stable external economies that resist the apparent tendency for capital to aggregate within the ever-larger control hierarchies of the modern corporation (Richardson, 1972; Thorelli, 1986; Johanson and Matson, 1987; Powell, 1987; Lorenz, 1988; Jarillo, 1988; Branch and Eccles, 1989; Powell, 1990, 1991; Lorenz, 1992; Cooke and Morgan, 1993). Political scientists and country specialists have provided nationally-specific models of industrial organization that rely extensively on external economies.
These models have been derived from research on the industrial systems of Japan (Schonberger, 1982; Dore, 1986; Sayer, 1986; Aoki, 1987; So, 1989; Womack et. al. , 1990; Florida and Kenny, 1993), Germany (Katzenstien, 1989; Sabel, 1989; Her rigel, 1993), and Italy (Brusco, 1982; Brusco and Sabel, 1983; Piore and Sabel, 1984; Brusco and Right, 1989). Geographers and planners have provided insights into how the spatial and social propinquity of geographically clustered industrial activity work to buoy ongoing external economies (Storper and Scott, 1988; Storper and Christopherson, 1988; Scott, 1988; Storper and Walker, 1989; Saxenian, 1991, 1992, 1994). Often these models have been constructed in an effort to explain why firms, industries, and national economies organized according to their tenets outperform industrial systems organized according to the Anglo-American norm. External economies allow for the development of trust; industry-, or at least locality-wide sharing of production capacity; greater opportunities for learning and technology transfer within the system; and perhaps most important, a superior ability to reconfigure the functional elements of production according to rapidly changing output requirements and the rise of new markets. This work has generated a sorely needed set of alternatives to the paradigm of the modern corporation, but surprisingly, scant attention has been paid to the industrial organization of American manufacturing companies as they have begun to adapt to the new forms of competition that triggered the crisis. (2) Most often portrayed as desperately clinging to the outmoded attributes of the modern corporation (e.
g. , Harrison, 1994), American firms have been held up as the antithesis of new, more dynamic organizational forms that have emerged in Italy, Germany, and especially Japan. The invisibility of American-led production networks in academic literature (but see Sabel, 1989; Donaghu and Brief, 1991; Levy and Dunning, 1993; Gereffi, 1994; Bonacich et. al. , 1994; Saxenian, 1994; and Borrus, 1995) may stem from their recent vintage. On the other hand, it also seems likely that some recent evidence of changes in the organizational characteristics of American firms has been misinterpreted because the system has not evolved in the image of Japanese, German, or Italian industry.
Today, more than twenty years after the crisis of the modern corporation began, we are seeing subtle but unmistakable evidence of recovery by American manufacturing firms. In the electronics industry, for example, dire predictions that American firms would continue to lose entire segments of the industry to foreign firms have proved unfounded. The continued dominance of many market sectors for electronic hardware by American firms has surprised observers who warned only a few years ago that Japanese electronics companies were poised to leverage their dominance in core components (e. g. , memory chips and flat panel displays) into dominance of markets for high-volume computer-related hardware, just as had happened in consumer electronics (Hart and Borrus, 1992).
So, there are signs of life in the heartland of the modern corporation. Still, we cannot simply resurrect models of industrial organization based on the modern corporation as if nothing has happened. Even a cursory examination of the industrial system of the United States reveals organizational patterns that look not at all like the modern corporation (Tully, 1993, 1994). The largest single employer in the country is not General Motors, but the temporary employment agency Manpower Inc.
The largest owner of passenger jets is not United Airlines, or any other major carrier, but the aircraft leasing arm of General Electric. Since 1992, IBM has literally turned itself inside-out, becoming a merchant provider of the basic technologies it had previously guarded so jealously for exclusive use in its own products. If what we see seems to have little relation to the ideal type of the modern corporation, there may be good reason. Perhaps the American industrial system has begun to adapt to the new, more intense competitive environment that triggered the crisis in the first place. Perhaps we are witnessing the emergence of a new American model of industrial organization, and not simply the crisis of the old. 2.
Schumpeter's Notion of Innovation in the Giant Firm Schumpeter believed that the stability provided by oligopolistic market structures created a better environment for industrial research. Large firms have the longevity and financial resources to build up the knowledge base required to apply scientific principles to ever more complex innovative problems. As the importance of codified knowledge increased in the early twentieth century, barriers of entry were erected that reduced the role of small-firm entrepreneurs who tended to base their innovations on tacit knowledge. (3) In the context of monopoly theory, these ideas became known as the Schumpetarian hypothesis: the claim that a market structure involving large firms with a considerable degree of market power is the price that society must pay for rapid technological advance (Nelson and Winter, 1982, p. 278). In the long run, Schumpeter believed that oligopolistic market structures would inevitably be torn asunder by ongoing rounds of innovation, competition, and new market creation. Nelson and Winter (1982) build on Schumpeter's conception of innovation as the motor of capitalist development in the construction of their theory of evolutionary economics. To follow the biological metaphor of evolution used by Nelson and Winter, the development of the economy moves according to a survival of the fittest logic, with the likelihood of survival increasing with firm profitability.
Profitability is determined by the effectiveness of company-specific routines (ways of doing things) that are passed on as the firm develops in the same manner that genes are passed on in biological systems. The search routines which firms apply to crisis situations (e. g. , the need to respond to a competitor by developing an innovative new product) determines the likelihood of their survival as they adapt, or mutate, in response to new situations. Because successful firms tend to invest in additional productive capacity, the dynamic process of industrial evolution tends to create larger firms and more concentrated market structures over time (up to the point where market concentration begins to stifle competition and hence, innovation). Nelson and Winter devised computer simulations that produce these results, using the variables of aggressiveness of investment policies, realization of potential productivity gains, the degree of difficulty in imitating the firms innovations, and how successful the firms innovative efforts are. In the simulation where the value for the first variable, aggressiveness of investment policies, was assigned a high value, imitation was made more difficult, latent productivity was better realized, and as a result, industry structure showed markedly higher levels of concentration than in simulations where capital investments were suppressed (in the real world, a firm might restrain investment to restrict output growth and keep prices high).
The assumptions in this model point out the key problem with using the Schumpetarian approach to predict the evolution of industry organization. In this schema, firms tend to get larger over time because successful innovations lead to higher profits and greater investments in productive capacity that put them further ahead of their competitors. Aggressive capital investment becomes a barrier to entry for new and existing firms and as a result, firms become larger and market structure more concentrated over time. But what if we allow for the possibility that increases in market share can be organizationally defined from increases in firm-specific capital investment? In the American electronics industry, for example, firms are increasingly relying on outside sources (i. e. , contract manufacturers) for manufacturing capacity.
If a firm successfully innovates (e. g. , develops a personal computer with dramatically better price / performance characteristics than any existing competitor), it can quickly ramp up production through its contract manufacturers without the lag or risk associated with building up internal capacity. In the turnkey network market concentration may increase, but industry structure remains relatively disaggregated. Moreover, barriers to entry based on the holding of productive capacity by leading firms fail to develop. 3. Turnkey Contract Manufacturing in Electronics In April, 1996, Apple Computer announced that it was selling its largest United States personal computer (PC) manufacturing facility in Fountain, Colorado to a little-known company called SCI Systems. Apple had just posted the largest quarterly loss in its history ($ 740 M) and had narrowly avoided being taken over by Sun Microsystems, so it may not have been suprising that it was shedding some of its assets.
What seemed strange about this deal was that, according to Apple management and industry pundits alike, Apples troubles did not stem from poor demand, but from its inability to meet demand. (4) Why would a company that is having trouble meeting demand sell one of its most important production facilities? One could easily imagine an effort to improve responsiveness and efficiency at existing facilities, but a move to decrease capacity at such a moment, on the face of it, seemed foolish. Did Apple plan to make up for the resulting loss in manufacturing capacity by expanding its remaining facilities in Ireland or Singapore, moving production to lower-cost offshore locations? A closer look at Apples restructuring strategy and its partner in the deal, SCI, provides some answers to this puzzle and serves as a thumbnail sketch of the organizational sea-change that is currently underway in the electronics industry. First, the sale to SCI did not mean that Apple computers would no longer be produced in the Colorado facility. On the contrary, the deal included a three-year agreement for SCI to continue to manufacture Apple products in the plant.
SCI is the largest of an emerging cadre of specialized firms whose sole business is to provide electronics manufacturing services to the industry on a contract basis; accordingly, companies like SCI are known as contract manufacturers. SCI had the right to use the plants production lines to manufacture products for any of its other customers as well as Apple, which at the time included more than fifty firms including Hewlett Packard and IBM, companies that compete directly with Apple in the PC market. The majority of the five-year-old plants 1, 100 workers were to stay on as SCI employees. So, Apple wasnt selling one of its U.
S. plants to some burgeoning local electronics company and moving its own production offshore: it was contracting with SCI to continue to manufacture Apple products in Colorado. According to Apple CEO Gilbert Amelio, the companys strategy was to outsource production to companies such as SCI in order to reduce Apples manufacturing overhead and inventory carrying costs while concentrating the companys resources more intensively on marketing and product design (Electronics Buyers News, 1996). As Kwok Lau, Apples Director of operations put it, Apple was moving to a variable cost position vis-? -vis its manufacturing operations. This meant that more of the companys manufacturing assets were to be held by outside companies. Instead of using fixed assets, namely production facilities owned and operated by Apple, to manufacture computers and peripheral equipment bearing the Apple nameplate, the company was to use the production assets of specialized outside suppliers, such as SCI.
After the sale, Apple was able to alter the volume of its production, upward or downward, on very short notice without installing or idling any of its own plants and equipment. Of particular interest to Apples management was the improved upside flexibility (i. e. , the ability to quickly ramp up production volumes to meet unexpected surges in demand) that the deal with SCI provided. (5) Another oddity about the press reports surrounding SCIs acquisition of Apples Fountain plant was the following statement by Fred Forsyth, Apples senior vice president of worldwide operations: By outsourcing the manufacturing activities of our Fountain site to a company of SCI Systems size, experience, and broad business base, Apple has the opportunity to benefit from SCI Systems economies of scale (Apple Computer, 1996). Although SCI is a large company, it is less than a third the size of Apple.
How could a company of SCIs size achieve greater manufacturing and component purchasing scale economies than a company whose market share in the PC industry has hovered between number one and three since the birth of the industry in the late 1970 s? The answer lies in the fact that SCIs sole business is contract manufacturing. The company has no internal product development capacity. Its sales and marketing activities are limited to developing its business as a manufacturer of other firms products. In fact, despite its size, and the fact that it manufactures no products under its own name, SCIs twenty world-wide plants may well contain more manufacturing capacity than any other single electronics firm. (6) Was the Apple/SCI deal unusual? Certainly not.
If anything, according to some industry watchers, some of Apples problems stemmed from the fact that it had been too slow to outsource its manufacturing operations, even though nearly 50 % of the companys manufacturing was already performed by contractors prior to the sale. By selling the Colorado facility to SCI, Amelio was simply placing Apple more completely on a bandwagon that was already well underway. Since the mid- 1980 s, and particularly in the 1990 s, large and well-known American electronics companies such as Apple, IBM, NCR, Philips, ATT, Hewlett Packard, and DEC have been abandoning their internal manufacturing operations in droves and turning to contract manufacturers such as SCI to build their products. At the same time, many younger, faster growing electronics firms, many of them based in Silicon Valley, CA, have always used contract manufacturers; few have built internal manufacturing capacity even as they have grown (e. g. , Sun Microsystems, Silicon Graphics, and Cisco Systems). Increased outsourcing has created an unprecedented boom in contract manufacturing revenues.
From 1988 to 1992 the sum of revenues generated by 1995 s largest twenty contractors grew at an annual rate of 30. 7 %. Since 1992, however, revenue growth has been accelerating dramatically year by year: from 1992 to 1995, revenues grew 46. 4 % each year, with the fastest growth coming from 1994 to 1995, when revenues expanded 51. 2 % (see Figure and Table 1). At the time of this writing, the unprecedented growth in the industry is showing no sign of slowing down (for example, SCIs revenues grew 65 % to more that calendar year 1996). Revenue growth for contractors has come from several sources. First, the purchase of a customers facility often includes at least short-term prospects for increased business as the contractor assumes responsibility for current and future production volumes. Besides increased volume, contractors revenues have increased from component purchasing and the provision of new services.
Increasingly contractors have been purchasing components for their customers in what is known in the industry as a turnkey contract. In this arrangement, the contractor essentially acts as a lender to its customers by purchasing and holding component inventories. Cash outlays are only recouped as finished products are delivered to the customer. Turnkey component buying increases the flow of capital through the contractor, driving up revenues and creating strong market linkages with component suppliers. Also, contractors have been vertically integrating in relation to their specialty, manufacturing. Besides basic electronics manufacturing processes, such as circuit board assembly, most contractors have added a range of back- and front-end services, such as process R&# 038; D, design for manufacturability, product-specific process development and documentation, various forms of testing, final product assembly, final packaging, software loading and document duplication, and shipping to distribution.
Some contractors have added repair services, not only for products manufactured in their plants but by customer plants as well. The contractors that have grown the fastest have specialized in advanced manufacturing processes, such as surface mount technology, which drive product miniaturization and performance forward. Figure 1. Revenues; 1995 s Top Twenty Contract Manufacturers, 1986 - 1995 (billions of current dollars) Table 1.
Revenues; 1995 s Top Twenty Contract Manufacturers, 1988 - 1995 (thousands of current dollars) CM Revenues (thousands of $) Annual Average Growth Rates 88 92 95 88 - 92 92 - 95 94 - 95 Top 5 1, 077, 366 2, 433, 127 7, 772, 792 24. 4 % 47. 3 % 51. 9 % Top 6 - 20 606, 000 1, 534, 200 4, 672, 382
Free research essays on topics related to: scale economies, hewlett packard, productive capacity, paradigm shift, twentieth century
Research essay sample on Productive Capacity Hewlett Packard
