Skip to Main Content
HBS Home
  • About
  • Academic Programs
  • Alumni
  • Faculty & Research
  • Baker Library
  • Giving
  • Harvard Business Review
  • Initiatives
  • News
  • Recruit
  • Map / Directions
Working Knowledge
Business Research for Business Leaders
  • Browse All Articles
  • Popular Articles
  • Cold Call Podcast
  • Managing the Future of Work Podcast
  • About Us
  • Book
  • Leadership
  • Marketing
  • Finance
  • Management
  • Entrepreneurship
  • All Topics...
  • Topics
    • COVID-19
    • Entrepreneurship
    • Finance
    • Gender
    • Globalization
    • Leadership
    • Management
    • Negotiation
    • Social Enterprise
    • Strategy
  • Sections
    • Book
    • Podcasts
    • HBS Case
    • In Practice
    • Lessons from the Classroom
    • Op-Ed
    • Research & Ideas
    • Research Event
    • Sharpening Your Skills
    • What Do You Think?
    • Working Paper Summaries
  • Browse All
    The Impact of Component Modularity on Design Evolution: Evidence from the Software Industry
    24 Jan 2008Working Paper Summaries

    The Impact of Component Modularity on Design Evolution: Evidence from the Software Industry

    by Alan MacCormack, John Rusnak and Carliss Y. Baldwin
    What factors should influence the design of a complex system? And what is the impact of choices on both product and organizational performance? These issues are of particular importance in the field of software given how software is developed: Rarely do software projects start from scratch. The authors analyzed the evolution of a commercial software product from first release to its current design, looking specifically at 6 major versions released at varying periods over a 15-year period. These results have important implications for managers, highlighting the impact of design decisions made today on both the evolution and the maintainability of a design in subsequent years. Key concepts include:
    • Data show strong support for the existence of a relationship between component modularity and design evolution.
    • Tightly coupled components have a higher probability of survival as a design evolves compared with loosely coupled components.
    • Tightly coupled components are also harder to augment, in that the mix of new components added in each version is significantly more modular than the legacy design.
    LinkedIn
    Email

    Author Abstract

    Much academic work asserts a relationship between the design of a complex system and the manner in which this system evolves over time. In particular, designs which are modular in nature are argued to be more "evolvable," in that these designs facilitate making future adaptations, the nature of which do not have to be specified in advance. In essence, modularity creates "option value" with respect to new and improved designs, which is particularly important when a system must meet uncertain future demands. Despite the conceptual appeal of this research, empirical work exploring the relationship between modularity and evolution has had limited success. Three major challenges persist: first, it is difficult to measure modularity in a robust and repeatable fashion; second, modularity is a property of individual components, not systems as a whole, hence we must examine these dynamics at the microstructure level; and third, evolution is a temporal phenomenon, in that the conditions at time t affect the nature of the design at time t+1, hence exploring this phenomenon requires longitudinal data. In this paper, we tackle these challenges by analyzing the evolution of a successful commercial software product over its entire lifetime, comprising six major "releases." In particular, we develop measures of modularity at the component level, and use these to predict patterns of evolution between successive versions of the design. We find that modularity has a strong and unambiguous impact on design evolution. Specifically, we show that i) tightly-coupled components are "harder to kill," in that they have a greater likelihood of survival in subsequent versions of a design; ii) tightly-coupled components are "harder to maintain," in that they experience more surprise changes to their dependency relationships that are not associated with new functionality; and iii) tightly-coupled components are "harder to augment," in that the mix of new components added in each version is significantly more modular than the legacy design.

    Paper Information

    • Full Working Paper Text
    • Working Paper Publication Date: December 2007
    • HBS Working Paper Number: 08-038
    • Faculty Unit(s): Technology and Operations Management; Finance
      Trending
        • 11 Aug 2022
        • Research & Ideas

        When Parents Tell Kids to ‘Work Hard,’ Do They Send the Wrong Message?

        • 16 Aug 2022
        • Op-Ed

        Now Is the Time for Entrepreneurs to Play Offense

        • 05 Aug 2022
        • Research & Ideas

        Why People Crave Feedback—and Why We’re Afraid to Give It

        • 15 Aug 2022
        • Book

        University of the Future: Finding the Next World Leaders in Higher Ed

        • 25 Jan 2022
        • Research & Ideas

        More Proof That Money Can Buy Happiness (or a Life with Less Stress)

    Carliss Y. Baldwin
    Carliss Y. Baldwin
    William L. White Professor of Business Administration, Emerita
    Contact
    Send an email
    → More Articles
    Alan D. MacCormack
    Alan D. MacCormack
    MBA Class of 1949 Adjunct Professor of Business Administration
    Contact
    Send an email
    → More Articles
    Find Related Articles
    • Strategy
    • Innovation and Invention
    • Video Game
    • Web Services

    Sign up for our weekly newsletter

    Interested in improving your business? Learn about fresh research and ideas from Harvard Business School faculty.
    ǁ
    Campus Map
    Harvard Business School Working Knowledge
    Baker Library | Bloomberg Center
    Soldiers Field
    Boston, MA 02163
    Email: Editor-in-Chief
    →Map & Directions
    →More Contact Information
    • Make a Gift
    • Site Map
    • Jobs
    • Harvard University
    • Trademarks
    • Policies
    • Accessibility
    • Digital Accessibility
    Copyright © President & Fellows of Harvard College