Vertical Scope Revisited: Transaction Costs vs Capabilities & Profit Opportunities in Mortgage Banking

What determines vertical scope? Transactions cost economics (TCE) has been the dominant paradigm for understanding "make" vs. "buy" choices. However, the traditional focus on empirically validating or refuting TCE has taken attention away from other possible drivers of scope, and it has rarely allowed us to understand the explanatory power of TCE versus other competing theories. This paper, using a particularly rich panel dataset from the Mortgage Banking industry, explores both the extent to which TCE predictions hold, and their ability to explain the variance in scope, when compared to all other possible drivers of integration. Using some direct measures of transaction costs, we observe that integration does mitigate risks; yet such risks and transaction costs do not seem to drive firm-level decisions of integration in retail production of loans. Rather, capability-driven and capacity- (or limit to growth-) driven considerations explain a significant amount of variance in our sample, under a variety of specifications and tests. We thus conclude that while TCE explanations of vertical scope are important, their impact is dwarfed by capability differences and by the desire of firms to leverage their capabilities and productive capacity by using the market.Mortgage Banking; Transaction Costs; Integration; Capabilities; Capacity Constraints; Limits to Growth

Vertical Scope Revisited: Transaction Costs vs Capabilities & Profit Opportunities in Mortgage Banking

What determines vertical scope? Transactions cost economics (TCE) has been the dominant paradigm for understanding “make” vs. “buy” choices. However, the traditional focus on empirically validating or refuting TCE has taken attention away from other possible drivers of scope, and it has rarely allowed us to understand the explanatory power of TCE versus other competing theories. This paper, using a particularly rich panel dataset from the Mortgage Banking industry, explores both the extent to which TCE predictions hold, and their ability to explain the variance in scope, when compared to all other possible drivers of integration. Using some direct measures of transaction costs, we observe that integration does mitigate risks; yet such risks and transaction costs do not seem to drive firm-level decisions of integration in retail production of loans. Rather, capability-driven and capacity- (or limit to growth-) driven considerations explain a significant amount of variance in our sample, under a variety of specifications and tests. We thus conclude that while TCE explanations of vertical scope are important, their impact is dwarfed by capability differences and by the desire of firms to leverage their capabilities and productive capacity by using the market

When the default just won't do: resilience as the new driver

This COVID-19 crisis has been a shock to us all. While the epidemiological issues rage on, and economic uncertainties rising, it has become clear that this crisis is much more than a contraction. Even when a vaccine emerges, and economic activity resumes, the old normal is history (Grandori 2020). We will be living in a different world, where only the resilient and the bold can survive – let alone thrive. It will take some concerted effort for to not succumb to their natural proclivity to simply repeat what has always worked for them in the past

How to Compete When Industries Digitize and Collide: An Ecosystem Development Framework

As industry boundaries dissolve and digitalization grows apace, ecosystems are becoming increasingly important. Yet for all the excitement and Big-Tech envy, there is little guidance for how to create ecosystems. How should a firm best engage? Should it become a partner to someone else’s ecosystem, or build its own? Should it focus on a broad range of digitally connected services, or narrow down? How should we think about ecosystem value proposition, governance, and complementor choice? And, what is the case for investment in ecosystems? Drawing on recent research and projects with leading firms, this article offers a framework for understanding, engaging in, and building business ecosystems

Ecosystems and competition law in theory and practice

One of the most profound changes in the industrial landscape in the last decade has been the growth of business ecosystems—groups of connected firms, drawing on (digital) platforms that leverage their complementors and lock in their customers, exploiting the “bottlenecks” that emerge in new industry architectures. This has created new asymmetries of power, where the “field” of competition is not the relevant product market, as is usually the case in competition law, but rather the ecosystem of various complementary products and associated complementor firms. These dynamics raise novel concerns over competition. After examining the foundational elements of the ecosystem concept, we review how ecosystems are addressed within the current scope of competition law and identify the gap in the existing framework of conventional competition law. We then move to a critical review of current efforts and proposals in the European Union for providing regulatory remedies for ex ante and ex post resolution of problems, focusing on the current (2020) proposals of the Digital Market Act on ex ante regulation, with its particular focus on “gatekeepers.” We also review recent regulatory initiatives in European countries that focus on ex post regulation and on the role of business models and ecosystem architectures in regulation before providing a deep dive into proposed Greek legislation that explicitly focuses on ecosystem regulation. We conclude with our observations on the challenges in instituting and implementing a regulatory framework for ecosystems, drawing on research and our own engagement in the regulatory process

Regulating platforms and ecosystems: an introduction

Digital technologies and modular production methods have led to the emergence of a new generation of global leaders which cement their market position by orchestrating digital platforms and ecosystems of complementors, which offer them new ways to create and capture value that often transcend the boundaries of existing sectors. Their business models, built on intangibles such as software code and access to data, support expansion that is both breathtakingly rapid and effectively costless. With capital markets all too willing to invest in these firms’ growth, and regulators unable to rein them in, these firms have been able to accumulate unprecedented power and wealth, with profound implications for competition, the economy, and society itself. This special issue confronts the challenge of regulating platforms and ecosystems head-on, revisiting the economic, strategic, and legal foundations that enable us to detect and redress issues of dominance and competition and address questions of the appropriate conception of and limits of the law. The papers included cover topics including the true nature of competition with an emphasis on dynamics and innovation, new approaches for legal and economic analysis including the alternatives for the “welfare criterion” and the protection of sunk investments, the approaches to take on tech mergers and acquisitions, the virtues and limits of self-regulation, the potential for radical breakups of Big Tech, and the issues of data, when privacy protection and competition steer us in different directions. Contributors also weigh up the case for regulatory intervention, the practical challenges involved, and the future state that we hope such actions will bring about

Mapping a sector's scope transformation and the value of following the evolving core

A surprisingly neglected facet of sector evolution is the evolutionary analysis of firms', and thus a sector's, scope. Defining a sector as a group of firms that can change their scope over time, we study the transformation of U.S. banking firms. We undertake a sectoral, population‐wide study of business‐scope transformation, with particular focus on which segments banks expand into. As financial intermediation evolved, a continuously shifting set of activities became associated with “core banking,” with scope changing and relatedness itself (measured through coincidence) evolving over the banking sector's history. Banks that expand scope while staying close to this evolving core attain net performance benefits. Identification tests show that the benefits of following the evolving core are robust to endogeneity

Externalities and complementarities in platforms and ecosystems: From structural solutions to endogenous failures

Platforms and ecosystems provide structures for constellations of economic actors to engage and interact as they seek to create and capture value. We consider how the constructs of platforms and ecosystems relate and explore why they have become more ubiquitous by focusing on the nature of their value-add. We propose that they emerge as a response to distinct market failures, which we identify, and we explain which specific externalities they help overcome. We also identify post-hoc endogenous functional and distributional failures that platforms and ecosystems, in turn, generate. We discuss implications for theory and practice

The evolutionary dynamics of the artificial intelligence ecosystem

We analyze the sectoral and national systems of firms and institutions that collectively engage in artificial intelligence (AI). Moving beyond the analysis of AI as a general-purpose technology or its particular areas of application, we draw on the evolutionary analysis of sectoral systems and ask, “Who does what?” in AI. We provide a granular view of the complex interdependency patterns that connect developers, manufacturers, and users of AI. We distinguish between AI enablement, AI production, and AI consumption and analyze the emerging patterns of cospecialization between firms and communities. We find that AI provision is characterized by the dominance of a small number of Big Tech firms, whose downstream use of AI (e.g., search, payments, social media) has underpinned much of the recent progress in AI and who also provide the necessary upstream computing power provision (Cloud and Edge). These firms dominate top academic institutions in AI research, further strengthening their position. We find that AI is adopted by and benefits the small percentage of firms that can both digitize and access high-quality data. We consider how the AI sector has evolved differently in the three key geographies—China, the United States, and the European Union—and note that a handful of firms are building global AI ecosystems. Our contribution is to showcase the evolution of evolutionary thinking with AI as a case study: we show the shift from national/sectoral systems to triple-helix/innovation ecosystems and digital platforms. We conclude with the implications of such a broad evolutionary account for theory and practice

The Business Value of Gamification

This article analyzes the connection between gamification and business success, focusing on customer retention, new customer acquisition, and transforming user perceptions. Based on a qualitative comparative analysis of 40 high-profile gamification projects, it shows that a combination of three key features—virtualization, social comparison, and tangible rewards—explain the various pathways to success. Each pathway requires the presence—and sometimes absence—of different design features, and firms do best when they focus on one or two objectives rather than all three at once. The article presents a framework for designing and implementing gamification more strategically and effectively, noting the ethical questions that arise