scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

C. K. Prahalad

Bio: C. K. Prahalad is an academic researcher. The author has contributed to research in topics: Opportunism & Knowledge-based theory of the firm. The author has an hindex of 1, co-authored 1 publications receiving 3146 citations.

Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors develop a resource-based knowledge-based theory of why firms are formed, based on irreducible knowledge differences between individuals rather than the threat of purposeful cheating or withholding of information.
Abstract: This paper develops a resource-based—knowledge-based—theory of the firm. Its thesis is that the organizational mode through which individuals cooperate affects the knowledge they apply to business activity. We focus on the polar cases of organization within a firm as compared to market contracting. There will be a difference in the knowledge that is brought to bear, and hence in joint productivity, under the two options. Thus, as compared to opportunism-based, transaction-cost theory, we advance a separate (yet complementary) answer to the question: why do firms exist? Our aim is to develop an empirically relevant and complementary theory of why firms are formed: a theory based on irreducible knowledge differences between individuals rather than the threat of purposeful cheating or withholding of information. We assume limited cognitive abilities on the part of individuals (bounded rationality), and assume that opportunistic behavior will not occur. The latter allows us to determine whether resource-based...

3,245 citations


Cited by
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors present a model that incorporates this overall argument in the form of a series of hypothesized relationships between different dimensions of social capital and the main mechanisms and proces.
Abstract: Scholars of the theory of the firm have begun to emphasize the sources and conditions of what has been described as “the organizational advantage,” rather than focus on the causes and consequences of market failure. Typically, researchers see such organizational advantage as accruing from the particular capabilities organizations have for creating and sharing knowledge. In this article we seek to contribute to this body of work by developing the following arguments: (1) social capital facilitates the creation of new intellectual capital; (2) organizations, as institutional settings, are conducive to the development of high levels of social capital; and (3) it is because of their more dense social capital that firms, within certain limits, have an advantage over markets in creating and sharing intellectual capital. We present a model that incorporates this overall argument in the form of a series of hypothesized relationships between different dimensions of social capital and the main mechanisms and proces...

15,365 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Seeks to present a better understanding of dynamic capabilities and the resource-based view of the firm to help managers build using these dynamic capabilities.
Abstract: This paper focuses on dynamic capabilities and, more generally, the resource-based view of the firm. We argue that dynamic capabilities are a set of specific and identifiable processes such as product development, strategic decision making, and alliancing. They are neither vague nor tautological. Although dynamic capabilities are idiosyncratic in their details and path dependent in their emergence, they have significant commonalities across firms (popularly termed ‘best practice’). This suggests that they are more homogeneous, fungible, equifinal, and substitutable than is usually assumed. In moderately dynamic markets, dynamic capabilities resemble the traditional conception of routines. They are detailed, analytic, stable processes with predictable outcomes. In contrast, in high-velocity markets, they are simple, highly experiential and fragile processes with unpredictable outcomes. Finally, well-known learning mechanisms guide the evolution of dynamic capabilities. In moderately dynamic markets, the evolutionary emphasis is on variation. In high-velocity markets, it is on selection. At the level of RBV, we conclude that traditional RBV misidentifies the locus of long-term competitive advantage in dynamic markets, overemphasizes the strategic logic of leverage, and reaches a boundary condition in high-velocity markets. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

13,128 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The authors argue that service provision rather than goods is fundamental to economic exchange and argue that the new perspectives are converging to form a new dominant logic for marketing, one in which service provision is fundamental for economic exchange.
Abstract: Marketing inherited a model of exchange from economics, which had a dominant logic based on the exchange of “goods,” which usually are manufactured output The dominant logic focused on tangible resources, embedded value, and transactions Over the past several decades, new perspectives have emerged that have a revised logic focused on intangible resources, the cocreation of value, and relationships The authors believe that the new perspectives are converging to form a new dominant logic for marketing, one in which service provision rather than goods is fundamental to economic exchange The authors explore this evolving logic and the corresponding shift in perspective for marketing scholars, marketing practitioners, and marketing educators

12,760 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors identify renewal of the overall enterprise as the underlying phenomenon of interest and organizational learning as a principal means to this end, and develop a framework for the process of organizational learning.
Abstract: Although interest in organizational learning has grown dramatically in recent years, a general theory of organizational learning has remained elusive. We identify renewal of the overall enterprise as the underlying phenomenon of interest and organizational learning as a principal means to this end. With this perspective we develop a framework for the process of organizational learning, presenting organizational learning as four processes—intuiting, interpreting, integrating, and institutionalizing—linking the individual, group, and organizational levels.

4,037 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors examine the black box of knowledge sharing within Toyota's network and demonstrate that Toyota's ability to effectively create and manage network-level knowledge-sharing processes at least partially explains the relative productivity advantages enjoyed by Toyota and its suppliers.
Abstract: Previous research suggests that knowledge diffusion occurs more quickly within Toyota’s production network than in competing automaker networks. In this paper we examine the ‘black box’ of knowledge sharing within Toyota’s network and demonstrate that Toyota’s ability to effectively create and manage network-level knowledge-sharing processes at least partially explains the relative productivity advantages enjoyed by Toyota and its suppliers. We provide evidence that suppliers do learn more quickly after participating in Toyota’s knowledge-sharing network. Toyota’s network has solved three fundamental dilemmas with regard to knowledge sharing by devising methods to (1) motivate members to participate and openly share valuable knowledge (while preventing undesirable spillovers to competitors), (2) prevent free riders, and (3) reduce the costs associated with finding and accessing different types of valuable knowledge. Toyota has done this by creating a strong network identity with rules for participation and entry into the network. Most importantly, production knowledge is viewed as the property of the network. Toyota’s highly interconnected, strong tie network has established a variety of institutionalized routines that facilitate multidirectional knowledge flows among suppliers. Our study suggests that the notion of a dynamic learning capability that creates competitive advantage needs to be extended beyond firm boundaries. Indeed, if the network can create a strong identity and coordinating rules, then it will be superior to a firm as an organizational form at creating and recombining knowledge due to the diversity of knowledge that resides within a network. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

3,638 citations