An Empirical Study of the Partnership Network Structure of Automakers under CASE

  • Fumihiko Isada Kansai University, Japan
  • Yuriko Isada Kwansei Gakuin University, Japan
Keywords: partnership network, social network analysis, technology change, automobile industry

Abstract

The purpose of this research is to analyse empirically the effect of the ongoing and radical change in the business environment in the automotive industry called CASE (Connected, Autonomous/Automated, Shared, Electric) on the network structure of the partnerships of automobile manufacturers. Traditionally, partnerships in the automotive industry have been dominated by dense network structures. On the other hand, according to previous studies in other industries, network structures suitable for radical innovation involve weak ties, structural holes, and betweenness centrality, etc. This study’s methodology used actual data on the partnerships of automobile manufacturers around the world which were analysed using a social network analysis method. The analysis results showed a significant correlation between the degree of approach to CASE and the number of weak ties and the size of structural holes. In addition, some case studies show significant differences in network structure between new technology venture companies and existing legacy technology companies. The discussion highlights the insight that the network structure of the automobile industry could change significantly in the future due to technological innovation. Future work should acknowledge that changes in the industry structure due to CASE are still in progress, and continuous research is needed.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Baldwin, C. Y., Clark, K. B. (2000), Design Rules: The Power of Modularity, MIT press, Cambridge, MA.

Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., Freeman, L. C. (2002), UCINet for Windows: Software for Social Network Analysis, Analytic Technologies, Harvard, MA.

Burt, R. S. (2004), “Structural holes and good ideas”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 110, No. 2, pp. 349-399.

Ceccagnoli, M., Forman, C., Huang, P., Wu, D. J. (2012), “Co-creation of value in a platform ecosystem: the case of enterprise soft- ware”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 263-290.

Cennamo, C., Santalo, J. (2013), “Platform competition: strategic trade-offs in platform markets”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 34, No. 11, pp. 1331-1350.

Chesbrough, H. (2003), Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.

Chesbrough, H., Kusunoki, K. (2001), “The modularity trap: innovation, technology phase shifts, and the resulting limits of virtual organizations”. In Nonaka, I., Teece, D. (Eds.), Managing Industrial Knowledge, SAGE Publications, London, pp. 202-230.

Fourin (2020). http://www.fourin.jp/ (accessed 10 December 2019)

Gawer, A., Cusumano, M. A. (2002), Platform Leadership: How Intel, Microsoft, and Cisco Drive Industry Innovation, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.

Gawer, A., Cusumano, M. A. (2013), “Industry platforms and ecosystem innovation”, Journal of Production Innovation Management, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp.417-433.

Granovetter, M. S. (2005), “The impact of social structure on economic outcomes”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 33-50.

Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., Shalley, C. E. (2006), “The interplay between exploration and exploitation”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 49, No. 4, pp. 693-706.

Houdek, F., Schmerler, S. (2017), “Automotive future and its impact on requirements engineering”, 23rd International Conference on Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality REFSQ 2017, Essen, Germany, 27 February – 2 March.

Iansiti, M., Lakhani, K. R. (2017), "managing our hub economy: strategy, ethics, and network competition in the age of digital superpowers", Harvard Business Review, Vol. 95, No. 5, pp. 84–92.

Iansiti, M., Levien, R. (2004), “Strategy as ecology”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 82, No. 3, pp. 68-78.

Lane, P. J., Lubatkin, M. (1998), “Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 19, No. 5, pp. 461-477.

Murasawa, Y. (2010), Denki Jidousha: Moyasanai Bunmei heno Daitenkan [Electric Vehicles: A Major Shift to a Non-Burning Civilization], Chikuma Shobo, Tokyo.

Nischak, F., Hanelt, A. (2019), “Ecosystem change in the era of digital innovation – a longitudinal analysis and visualization of the automotive ecosystem”, International Conference on Information Systems ICIS, 15-18 December, Association for Information Systems, Munich, Germany, paper 1753.

Open.Factset (2014). FactSet Supply Chain Relationships. Available at: https://open.factset.com/products/factset-supply-chain-relationships/en-us (accessed 26 April 2020)

Phelps, C., Heidl, R., Wadhwa, A. (2012), “Knowledge, networks, and knowledge networks: a review and research agenda”, Journal of Management, Vol. 38, No. 4, pp. 1115-1166.

Saeki, Y. (2011), “Technical characteristics and auto-parts transactional relationship of electric vehicle market from the perspective of architecture-based analysis”, Ritsumeikan Business Journal, Vol. 5, pp. 25-49.

Teece, D. J. (2009), Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management: Organizing for Innovation and Growth, Oxford University Press, New York.

Wessel, M., Levie, A., Siegel, R. (2016), “The problem with legacy ecosystems”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 94, No. 11, pp. 68-74.

Published
2020-09-22
How to Cite
Isada, F., & Isada, Y. (2020). An Empirical Study of the Partnership Network Structure of Automakers under CASE. Proceedings of the ENTRENOVA - ENTerprise REsearch InNOVAtion Conference (Online), 6(1), 365-376. Retrieved from https://proceedings.entrenova.org/entrenova/article/view/338
Section
Business Administration & Business Economics, Marketing, Accounting