Technische Universität München

Open and User Innovation Workshop, Harvard Business School

July 30, 2014

Joachim Henkel, Alexander Hoffmann

Value capture

in hierarchically organized industries:

The role of open source inputs

Joachim Henkel, Alexander Hoffmann |

Nokia 770: Open source inputs

*Source: A. Jaaksi, presentation to LinuxWorld 2006 2

Joachim Henkel, Alexander Hoffmann | 3

Who appropriates the value

that open source inputs contribute

to complex, hierarchical systems?

Joachim Henkel, Alexander Hoffmann | 4

A hierarchically organized industry

OEM

2nd tier suppliers

1st tier suppliers

Joachim Henkel, Alexander Hoffmann | 5

Negotiations

The value split between industry participants is determined in negotiations.

Each 1st tier suppliernegotiates with its

2nd tier suppliers

OEM negotiates with1st tier suppliers

Joachim Henkel, Alexander Hoffmann | 6

Bargaining structure and value split

We show: Bargaining structure – who negotiates with whom – affects how the value is split.

Joachim Henkel, Alexander Hoffmann | 7

Model approach:

Hierarchical Shapley Value

Joachim Henkel, Alexander Hoffmann | 8

Hierarchical Shapley Value (1/3)

▪ Idea:

– Value split between level-1 (L1) modules according to Shapley Value

– Value split within a given L1 module acc. to (modified) SV, assuming all other L1 modules are complete and present (reflects limited information)

– Similar to Owen Value (1977), but different in important respect

L1 modules

L2 modules

Joachim Henkel, Alexander Hoffmann | 9

▪ Set of L1 modules: , where , disjoint, and

▪ Level-1 value distribution among L1 modules:

– Induced characteristic function represents value of (complete) L1 modules and their unifications:

– L1 Shapley value distribution:

Hierarchical Shapley Value (2/3)

�̂� :2𝔅→ℝ , �̂� ( 𝐽 ) :=𝑣 (¿𝑀 𝑖∈ 𝐽𝑀 𝑖 )

𝜙𝑀 𝑖

❑ (�̂� )≔ ∑𝑆⊆𝔅¿𝑀𝑖 }

|𝑆|! (𝑘−∨𝑆∨−1 )!𝑘!

( �̂� (𝑆∪𝑀 𝑖 )−�̂� (𝑆 ))

for

Joachim Henkel, Alexander Hoffmann | 10

▪ Level-2 value distribution among modules within

– L2 modules assume presence of all other L1 modules

– Induced characteristic function ():

– L2 Shapley Value distribution within an L1 module:

Hierarchical Shapley Value (3/3)

~𝑣𝑀 𝑖( 𝐽 ):=

(𝑣 ( 𝐽∪ (𝑀 {𝑀 ¿¿ 𝑖))−𝑣 (𝑀 {𝑀¿¿ 𝑖 ) )𝑣 (𝑀 )−𝑣 (𝑀 {𝑀¿¿ 𝑖)

𝜙𝑀𝑖

❑ (�̂� )

𝜙𝑚 𝑗

𝐻𝑆𝑉 (𝑣 )≔𝜙𝑚 𝑗

❑ (~𝑣𝑀𝑖 ):= ∑𝑆⊆𝑀 𝑖 {{𝑚 𝑗

}¿|𝑆|! (¿ 𝑀𝑖∨−|𝑆|−1 ) !

¿𝑀 𝑖∨!(~𝑣𝑀𝑖

(𝑆∪{𝑚 𝑗 })−~𝑣𝑀𝑖(𝑆 ))

Joachim Henkel, Alexander Hoffmann | 11

Open Source Inputs

Joachim Henkel, Alexander Hoffmann | 12

OSS modules and value split

What if one of the “participants” is an open source module?

Contributes to value creation But: does not claim any value Who appropriates the value contributed by the OSS module?

Joachim Henkel, Alexander Hoffmann | 13

Open source (OSS) modules

Assumptions:

▪ Contributors to the same subsystem as the OSS module are aware of it and use it in their negotiations

▪ Contributors to other subsystems as the OSS module, or higher levels, are not aware of it and do not use it in their negotiation

– “Information hiding” function of modularity (Baldwin and Clark, 2000)

Joachim Henkel, Alexander Hoffmann | 14

Results (1/2)

System

A B&OSS

B OSS

System

A B OSS

Value function , , , ,

, , ,

Since OSS is freely available, we assume that both A and B us it in their value proposition.

B’s value capture acc. to Shapley:

Hierarchical Shapley value:

Split on 2nd level, within “B&OSS”: trivial, all value to B

Split on 1st level: B captures…

Joachim Henkel, Alexander Hoffmann | 15

Results (2/2)

System

A B&OSS

B OSS

System

A B OSS

Through clustering with OSS module, B gains:

,

where denotes the “complementarity gains” of putting A and the OSS module together

Joachim Henkel, Alexander Hoffmann | 16

Conclusions

▪ It is beneficial for firm B to be clustered with the OSS module (compared to a situation where A, B, and the OSS module are all on the top level)

▪ How much B benefits from clustering, depends…

– on the complementarity between A and the OSS module

– but not on the complementarity between B and the OSS module

▪ Logic:

– Complementarity between B and OSS module benefits B in any case

– The stronger the complementarity between A and OSS module, the more of the value added by OSS (incl. the complementarity gain) is claimed by A in case of no hierarchy, making hierarchy more attractive for B

▪ Generalization of results to larger systems possible

▪ Results extend literature (e.g., Lerner & Tirole 2002, West & Gallagher 2006) showing that complementary products are a way to benefit from OSS

Thanks