The dynamic capabilities framework analyzes the sources and methods of wealth creation and capture by private enterprise firms operating in environments of rapid technological change. The competitive advantage of firms is seen as resting on distinctive processes (ways of coordinating and combining), shaped by the firm's (specific) asset positions (such as the firm's portfolio of difftcult-to- trade knowledge assets and complementary assets), and the evolution path(s) it has aflopted or inherited. The importance of path dependencies is amplified where conditions of increasing retums exist. Whether and how a firm's competitive advantage is eroded depends on the stability of market demand, and the ease of replicability (expanding intemally) and imitatability (replication by competitors). If correct, the framework suggests that private wealth creation in regimes of rapid technological change depends in large measure on honing intemal technological, organizational, and managerial processes inside the firm. In short, identifying new opportunities and organizing effectively and efficiently to embrace them are generally more fundamental to private wealth creation than is strategizing, if by strategizing one means engaging in business conduct that keeps competitors off balance, raises rival's costs, and excludes new entrants. © 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

/pdf/dynamic-capabilities-and-strategic-management-4iyi34iyh6.pdf

Dynamic capabilities and strategic management

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.

/pdf/dynamic-capabilities-what-are-they-3cn0mb9rpo.pdf

Dynamic capabilities, what are they?

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

/pdf/evolving-to-a-new-dominant-logic-for-marketing-bnlxqi06a2.pdf

Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing

Given assumptions about the characteristics of knowledge and the knowledge requirements of production, the firm is conceptualized as an institution for integrating knowledge. The primary contribution of the paper is in exploring the coordination mechanisms through which firms integrate the specialist knowledge of their members. In contrast to earlier literature, knowledge is viewed as residing within the individual, and the primary role of the organization is knowledge application rather than knowledge creation. The resulting theory has implications for the basis of organizational capability, the principles of organization design (in particular, the analysis of hierarchy and the distribution of decision-making authority), and the determinants of the horizontal and vertical boundaries of the firm. More generally, the knowledge-based approach sheds new light upon current organizational innovations and trends and has far-reaching implications for management practice.

https://memberfiles.freewebs.com/84/90/65819084/documents/TOWARD%20A%20KNOWLEDGE-BASED%20THEORY%20OF%20THE.pdf

Toward a Knowledge-Based Theory of the Firm

In this article we offer a view that suggests that a firm's critical resources may span firm boundaries and may be embedded in interfirm resources and routines. We argue that an increasingly important unit of analysis for understanding competitive advantage is the relationship between firms and identify four potential sources of interorganizational competitive advantage: (1) relation-specific assets, (2) knowledge-sharing routines, (3) complementary resources/capabilities, and (4) effective governance. We examine each of these potential sources of rent in detail, identifying key subprocesses, and also discuss the isolating mechanisms that serve to preserve relational rents. Finally, we discuss how the relational view may offer normative prescriptions for firm-level strategies that contradict the prescriptions offered by those with a resource-based view or industry structure view.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/259056.pdf

The Relational View: Cooperative Strategy and Sources of Interorganizational Competitive Advantage

Opec behavior: an alternative view

This study reviews the regulatory setting in four countries, all of which are in the process of introducing increasing amounts of competition into their telecommunications sectors. Although there is considerable variation in the degree of progress, in every country there is a philosophical trend toward the retreat of regulation. The one significant political obstacle to complete deregulation is universal service. It is very probably that light-handed approaches toward regulation will bring greater benefits to the consumer, both short- and long-term, and the US approach will provide little worth emulating. Copyright 1998 by Oxford University Press.

Four Approaches to Telecommunications Deregulation and Competition: The USA, the UK, Australia and New Zealand

In recent years, the overseas research and development activities of US-based firms have become the focus of controversy. Some observers view such activities with suspicion, since they regard them as a device to "export" R and D jobs, or as a channel through which American technology may be transmitted to actual or potential foreign competitors.' Others, particularly the governments of many developing (and some developed) countries, view them as highly desirable activities that will help to stimulate indigenous R and D in these countries. Indeed, the United Nations Group of Eminent Persons recommended that host countries require multinational corporations to contribute towards innovation of appropriate kinds, and to encourage them to do such R and D in their overseas affiliates.2 Although the amount of controversy in this area might lead one to believe that the nature of existing overseas R and D activities of US-based firms has been studied quite thoroughly, this is far from the case. The unfortunate truth is that economists have devoted little or no attention to even the most basic questions concerning these activities.3 In this paper, we try to fill part of this gap.

Overseas research and development by us‐based firms

/pdf/introduction-to-special-topic-forum-on-developing-the-2rorp8ar2s.pdf

David J. Teece

Papers

Opec behavior: an alternative view

Four Approaches to Telecommunications Deregulation and Competition: The USA, the UK, Australia and New Zealand

Overseas research and development by us‐based firms

Introduction to special topic forum on developing the dynamic capabilities of global companies across levels and locations

Chapter 6 – Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management