Sergei Mozheiko defends his PhD thesis
Sergei Mozheiko defends his PhD thesis 'Modular Organization: Understanding Ecosystem Coordination and Business Model Integration'.
The defence is public, and everybody is welcome; the defence is scheduled for a maximum of three hours and will be held in English.
Follow the defense online via Zoom >
Department of Social Sciences and Business will host a small reception afterwards.
This PhD project is co-financed with SDC
This PhD project is a double degree with UCAS, China
Supervisors and assessment
Assessment committee:
- Shahamak Rezaei, Associate Professor, Department of Social Sciences and Business, Roskilde University, Denmark (chair)
- Yimei Hu, lektor, Aalborg University, Denmark
- Christina Öberg, Professor, Linnaeus University, Sweden
- Haiyan Wang, Dean Professor, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, China
- Tina Saebi, Associate Professor, Norwegian School of Economics, Norway
Vejledere:
- Vejleder: Kristian Sund, Professor (MSO), Department of Social Sciences and Business, Roskilde University
- Bi-vejleder: Johannes Dreyer, Associate Professor, Department of Social Sciences and Business, Roskilde University
- Bi-vejleder: Jiang Yu, Professor, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences
Leder af forsvaret:
- Peter Triantafillou, Professor, Department of Social Sciences and Business, Roskilde University
Resumé
Coordination and integration are longstanding subjects of interest in organization studies. As firms pursue economies of specialization and divide their value-creating activities among each other, the costs of coordinating their interdependent and complementary efforts rise as well. These coordination costs are especially salient when complementarities are highly specific and cannot be efficiently governed through market-based mechanisms alone, thereby requiring tighter forms of control. This tension between specialization economies and integration costs raises a fundamental question: how can value-creating activities be optimally divided while ensuring that complementary outputs are integrated cost-effectively? This question has gained renewed relevance with the proliferation of novel business models and hybrid organizational forms. Relatively recent advancements in information technologies and modular designs have enabled organizational arrangements in which the division of labor and integration of effort can be achieved more economically than through pure markets or hierarchies. These new hybrid forms have proven particularly effective at lowering the coordination costs typically associated with hierarchies while enabling the integration of highly specific components or activities - something often unachievable through market-based exchange alone. Such a division of specifically complementary labor intensifies interdependence between the business models of legally independent firms, leading to the use of the metaphor business ecosystems (hereafter simply ecosystems) to capture this mutual reliance. However, the very mechanisms and practices used to coordinate these interdependent business models toward shared ecosystem-level objectives - particularly when the coordinating entity lacks ownership over external actors - remain insufficiently understood. This dissertation, through a series of four papers, focuses on examining how collective effort can be integrated when value-creating activities are highly distributed.
Paper 1 seeks to establish conceptual coherence between business models and ecosystems. I argue that the two are teleologically related, as both are defined as activity systems focused on value creation and marked by high interdependence. Since value-creating activities serve as their shared unit of analysis - at the firm and interfirm levels, respectively - I propose that ecosystems function as modular configurations of interdependent business models. This systemmodule perspective clarifies that business models serve as the constituent modules of ecosystems. Consequently, orchestrating an ecosystem involves indirectly influencing these business models through mechanisms such as standards, interfaces, or platform governance. Such conceptualization sharpens the analytical boundaries between firms, business models, and ecosystems, and explains how ecosystems evolve and adapt through the reconfiguration of activity modules. This perspective is important going forward, as the conceptual relationship between business models and ecosystems recur throughout and underpin both the empirical and theoretical papers that follow.
Paper 2 empirically examines how multinational corporations (MNCs) can address coordination and integration challenges when operating under dual business models. Based on a case study of Velux China, I show how subsidiaries can balance local-market adaptation with corporatelevel integration by adopting loosely coupled organizational arrangements. Velux China reconfigured its business model by shifting from standardized rooftop products to locally adapted, modular basement solutions. This transition was coordinated by aligning with the corporate mission and values while embedding locally through partnerships with original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and service providers. The study demonstrates that dual business models can coexist when activities are decoupled at the operational level but remain strategically integrated through shared goals and knowledge flows. This configuration enables local responsiveness and innovation without conflicting with the MNC’s other business models. I also discuss the managerial capabilities required to implement and sustain such a configuration.
Paper 3 empirically examines how ecosystem orchestration can function as a defensive nonmarket strategy for incumbent firms facing regulatory uncertainty. Drawing on a case of a European multinational in the building industry, I show how perceived regulatory threats and opportunities can trigger the formation of international ecosystems designed to influence both regulatory frameworks and market configurations. The lead firm orchestrated a diverse group of actors - small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), universities and architects - around a shared value proposition and common building standards. Ecosystem expansion was driven by co-branding benefits for smaller firms and the promise of enhanced political legitimacy for multinationals engaged in lobby work. I also examine the governance and orchestration challenges that arise when ecosystem participants pursue different goals, and how such misalignments can be tackled. The case demonstrates that ecosystem orchestration can serve as an effective strategy for addressing nonmarket issues and influencing policymakers, suggesting that vertically disintegrated yet strategically aligned industries may possess greater legitimacy than vertically integrated firms. Nonetheless, ensuring ecosystem viability proves challenging, as it depends on adaptive governance and sustained value capture for highly heterogeneous participant groups.
Paper 4 advances a theoretical framework that explains how industries evolve toward modular ecosystems in pursuit of lower coordination costs and increased specialization economies. Building on modularity theory and the knowledge-based view, I argue that technological and institutional developments reducing the cost of coordinating distributed activities lead economic organization to favor finer divisions of labor among loosely coupled, specialized actors. Firms increasingly function as activity modules within broader ecosystems, narrowing their operational scope while maintaining scale. The scope of solutions is achieved through codified interfaces and standardized integration points between ecosystem actors. I show that integrating complementary efforts without internalizing the associated value-creating activities can be economically feasible when enabled by embedded coordination mechanisms, such as standards and visible design rules. This framework contributes to ecosystem research by demonstrating how knowledge codification and interface design shape industry and firm boundaries, and by identifying the conditions under which modularization is both economically efficient and organizationally viable.
Together, the studies contribute to theory and practice on coordination and integration in ecosystems by foregrounding modularity as a central design principle. The dissertation demonstrates that ecosystems emerge not merely from enabling complementarities but from doing so cost-effectively by reducing coordination costs, thereby overcoming the classic trade-off between specialization economies and integration costs. Building on Simon’s (1962) conceptualization of modularity as a response to organizational complexity and echoing Adam Smith’s insight on the division of labor, the framework explains how global digital connectivity and information codification make markets virtually unlimited. This perspective clarifies why narrowly specialized firms, often with small teams, can achieve extraordinary valuations by addressing global markets while efficiently coordinating externalized complementary activities through standard interfaces, digital infrastructures and cloud-based platforms. Conceptually, the work bridges business model and ecosystem literatures, advancing a more comprehensive framework rooted in modular design. Empirically, it identifies structural, technological, and managerial mechanisms that incumbent multinationals employ to coordinate their ecosystems. Managerially, the findings underscore the need to balance specialization with scope, highlighting risks of lock-in and the importance of ecosystem exit strategies, multihoming, and technological diversification. The dissertation also identifies critical managerial capabilities - empowering corporate entrepreneurs and developing nonmarket knowledge - to influence policymakers and navigate the tensions in an era of rising interdependence among firms.
The dissertation will be available for reading at the Roskilde University Library before the defence (on-site use). The dissertation will also be available at the defence.