AI and Platforms Challenge a Key Management Theory. Again

The Boundary of the Firm

Where should a leader set the boundaries of the company? Initially, this question related to employees vs partners and relied on economic theories of transaction costs. For instance, should the leader of a company making automobiles directly employ people making engines, or should it outsource the engine (or subcomponents of it) to suppliers in a different company?

This is not a trivial or purely theoretical question. The chairman of Ford has admitted that his company struggles to build a fully electric vehicle because it has thousands of suppliers, each with its own software for its own components. Control of all parts of the business model, from manufacturing to sales, is what has allowed Tesla to break into what many considered a closed industry.

The Evolution of Firms

The general trend has been to outsource many parts of an operation so that each firm focuses on its unique competence. The result (usually) results in products of higher quality and lower cost. However, there are some notable exceptions, such as Boeing, where firms outsourced too much and proved unable to consistently integrate thousands of suppliers into a single product.

This question evolved into where new ideas should come from. Should a leader rely exclusively on employees inside of the firm to think of new innovative ideas, or should the company solicit opinions from people outside of the company’s walls? The latter, labeled "open innovation," dramatically accelerated the pace, scope, and creativity of company innovations.

Multi-Sided Platforms and AI

Multi-sided platforms changed the conventional wisdom on firm boundaries again. Expedia books more travel than any other firm in the world and yet does not own a plane, boat, car, or hotel room. Not only does it not own its own supply, it does not even control its supply. An airline can discontinue a flight route without Expedia’s consent. Or, absent a contract, a hotel can remove itself from Expedia’s inventory. This change generated a shift in research on leadership, expanding beyond advice for how a company CEO should lead employees and activities within a firm to how a company CEO should orchestrate activities with partners in an ecosystem of companies.

The proliferation of AI inside companies will propel another shift in the firm’s boundaries. Whereas open innovation brings ideas from other people inside the firm, AI brings all human knowledge to every employee, customer, and competitor. The CEO is no longer the person in the company with the most wisdom or knowledge. In many instances, the CEO’s role is first to accelerate AI adoption to improve employee productivity, second to promote thinking about how AI could improve customer offerings, and third to prioritize which AI-powered projects should proceed to implementation.

Broader Impact

Narrowing the boundaries of a firm does not just impact the firm or its supply chain. If many firms decide to move some of their existing positions "outside the company" to AI, we will see a major drop in overall employment. This part of the story is already well-known. This article shows the company-specific logic that flows into larger trends.

Conclusion

The debate about the boundaries of the firm is ongoing and will continue to evolve as AI and multi-sided platforms shape the business landscape. Leaders must be prepared to adapt and innovate in response to these changes, or risk being left behind.

Frequently Asked Questions

• What is the main point of this article?
  • The main point is that the boundaries of the firm are changing due to AI and multi-sided platforms, and leaders must adapt to these changes.
• What are the implications of AI on the firm’s boundaries?
  • AI brings all human knowledge to every employee, customer, and competitor, making the CEO no longer the person with the most wisdom or knowledge.
• What is the impact of AI on employment?
  • If many firms decide to move some of their existing positions "outside the company" to AI, we will see a major drop in overall employment.