Complementary Capabilities in Dynamic Environments: the Evolution of Professional Services in Information Technology Product Firms
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Complementary Capabilities in Dynamic Environments: The Evolution of Professional Services in Information Technology Product Firms by Phillip C. Anderson M.B.A., University of California Los Angeles, 1998 M.S. in Electrical Engineering, Illinois Institute of Technology, 1985 B.S. in Electrical Engineering, Purdue University, 1984 Submitted to the Sloan School of Management in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of ARCHIVES DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY at the MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY June 2012 7~i C 2012 Phillip C. Anderson. All rights reserved. The author hereby grants to MIT permission to reproduce and to distribute publicly paper and electronic copies of this thesis document in whole or in part in any medium now known or hereafter created. Signature of Author: MIT Sloan School of Management March 15, 2012 -i Certified by: Michael A. Cusumano Sloan Management Review Distinguished Professor of Management MIT Sloan School of Management K Thesis Supervisor 4 Accepted by: Ezra Zuckerman Sivan V Nanyang Technological University Professor Chair MIT Sloan Ph.D. Program MIT Sloan School of Management 2 Complementary Capabilities in Dynamic Environments: The Evolution of Professional Services in Information Technology Product Firms by Phillip C. Anderson Submitted to the MIT Sloan School of Management on March 15, 2012 in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy ABSTRACT The innovative firm must continually evaluate its boundaries - decisions often shaped through make-buy-partner evaluations and choices about where to define the firm's competences. Building off of earlier work that suggests heterogeneity in types of organizational competences, I submit that a firm's portfolio of organizational capabilities map across three states: core, supplementary, and complementary. Core capabilities are the defining competences that are imprinted during the founding and formative years of the firm. Persistence in the core often leads to inaction and failure. Supplementary capabilities may form after the firm establishes its core and whose origins are traced to diversification expansion events. Complementary capabilities may form at founding and/or as managers detect competence gaps during changing conditions. Complementary is activated primarily to increase the value of the core. Given the firm as a portfolio of heterogeneous competences, the dissertation's focus is on when, why, and how the established innovator activates new complementary capabilities in dynamic environments. The context is hardware product vendors within the Information Technology (IT) industry and the complementary organizational capability is the business of professional services - e.g., consulting, systems integration, and custom implementation. Considering the expansion into professional services as a type of related diversification, the first paper uses panel data of U.S.-based IT product firms from 1987-2008 to explore the industry-level patterns behind the expansion into complementary services-centric domains given the core expertise in R&D-centric activities. I find that product firms who were diversified into more complementary R&D-centric activities (e.g., software) were more likely to diversify into complementary professional services - suggesting that professional services are part of a larger architectural/portfolio enablement strategy. The next part of the dissertation explores this phenomenon further by examining the process by which two innovative firms activate new complementary capabilities using polar- opposite dominant models: EMC preferred to "make" while Cisco preferred to "partner." Both case studies emphasize the process and unique dilemmas with the activation and evolution of complementary capabilities from 1995-2010, an era marked by continuous technological change and market uncertainties. I conclude with a discussion of the common patterns across these two firms and managerial implications. 3 Committee: Michael A. Cusumano (Thesis Supervisor) Sloan Management Review Distinguished Professor of Management MIT Sloan School of Management Fernando Suarez Associate Professor of Management Chair, Strategy & Innovation Department Boston University School of Management Scott Stern School of Management Distinguished Professor of Technological Innovation, Entrepreneurship, and Strategic Management MIT Sloan School of Management 4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS It's been a long road to get to this point. I keep shaking my head in disbelief as I reflect back on the last six years of my life. It's hard to believe. It's been fun, challenging, and quite painful all in one. The true heroes are my wife (Sybil) and kids (Bennett, David, and Sophia) who put up with my madness for the last six years. Have I inspired them? Perhaps. My daughter would freely tell people, "My dad hasn't figured out what he's going to do for the rest of his life so I have plenty of time to decide." Oh what a thin line between inspiration and insult. Together, we have been on quite an adventure. I have had many supportive family members encouraging me along the way and they deserve a big thank you: Mom, Dad (in spirit), Cheryl, Sandra, Michael, Ginnie, Rob, Katja, Stacey, John G, and John. At MIT, the student community has been very supportive along the way. There's a kinship that develops although you may not spend hours hanging out together. There's a common bond that develops as we struggle to find some compelling data, frame a paper, find a puzzling question, or just figure out how to stay sane. Of special note have been my 2006 BPS cohort: Ryan Hammond, Stella Kounelaki, Kate Parrot, and Seth Pipkin. We never did as many dinners together as we wanted, but we are forever united in spirit. Thanks to several office mates who put up with my goofiness and heavy sighing as I struggled through this process: Ethan Mollick, "Professor" Eun Suk Lee, Chuck Eesley, Sung Joo Bae, Julia DiBenigno, George Lan, and David Keith. And I can't forget others along the way who I have shared the pain and suffering with: Steve Kahl, Lynn Wu, Michael "The French Guy" Bikard, Yanbo Wang, and Heekyung Kim. I want to thank my committee for putting up with my wild work - Michael Cusumano, Fernando Suarez, and Scott Stern. There's still more to do, but the current work has only gotten better with your help. Thank you for helping to channel me in constructive directions through a process of sensemaking for a messy, but highly interesting phenomenon. A special thanks goes to Cusumano for helping to keep my boat afloat through many RA and TA appointments. I also want to thank the TIE(S) faculty for being patient with me. A special thanks to Jim Utterback who took me to the first day of his class when I came and interviewed. And I can't forget Diane Burton who was a big help to me during my first few years. I want to also thank Ezra Zuckerman Sivan who met with me several times as I was struggling to wrap my brain around this phenomenon. A great big thank you goes to Sharon Cayley, the PhD program coordinator who can move mountains. I owe you some chocolate! A special thanks goes to the many people who provided invaluable insights on their experience from the front lines of this phenomenon. These have included people at TPSA, Red Hat, HP, IBM, Unisys, i365, INPUT, EMC, and Cisco. 5 Table of Contents I Introduction...................................................... 9 2 Conceptual Model and Research Setting ................................................................ 11 2.1 PERSPECTIVES ON ORGANIZATIONAL CAPABILITIES ........................................... 12 2.1.1 What are they and how do they matter? ...... ....... ....... 12 2.1.2 In dynamic environments........................................................................... 13 2.1.3 Heterogeneity and how it matters ................................................................. 15 2.2 RESEARCH SETTING ............................................................................................ 23 3 Professional Services as Strategy for IT Product Firms ..................... 27 3.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 27 3.2 THEORY AND HYPOTHESES................................................................................ 30 3.2.1 Related and Unrelated Diversification...................................................... 30 3.2.2 The Complexity Gap.................................................................................. 31 3.2.3 Prior Diversification ........................................ 34 3.3 M ETH OD S ............................................................................................................ 36 3.3.1 The Information Technology Industry and Professional Services............. 36 3.3.2 Measuring diversification into services .......................... 37 3.3.3 Sample and Data ........................................................................................ 38 3.3.4 Model Estimation...................................................................................... 40 3.4 M EASURES.......................................................................................................... 41 3.4.1 p ................................................................................. 4 1 3.4.2 Explanatory Variables...............................................................................41 3.4.3 Control Variables .......................................... 44 3.5 RESU LTS ..............................................................................................................